Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mossback »

Dec 27, 2007 8:00 AM | last updated Dec 27, 2007 8:32 AM
Advertisement
Advertisement

Anatomy of a one-party state

In Washington, the Democrats are "routing" Republicans in money, recruitment, and centrist ideology, so much so that GOP defector Fred Jarrett says his former party has positioned itself outside the "governing coalition."

By Knute Berger

Where have all the "Evans Republicans" gone? They're Democrats.

The state GOP's center is not holding. Not only are traditional Republican strongholds, like Seattle's Eastside suburbs, turning from Red to Blue, but the center of gravity in state politics has moved decisively. It's likely to be a long-term shift. That's because the business community is largely aligned with the Democratic party and that's where the deals will be made. At least so says the newly minted Democrat centrist Fred Jarrett of Mercer Island, whose defection from the GOP ranks earlier this month raised eyebrows and alarms in Republican circles.

The pro-choice, moderate legislator Jarrett has long been the centrist face of the GOP in Olympia and greater Seattle. But he increasingly seemed to feel out of step with his own party's leadership. I exchanged emails with then-Republican Jarrett last spring while writing an article about the loss of Eastside GOP state representative Toby Nixon, a libertarian conservative who did not always follow the party line. Jarrett worried about the consequences of a shrinking "big tent" for the party:

Our ability to maintain a stable democratic government requires that both parties have a robust, centrist core. I think we’ve seen the results of polarization and [Democrat House Speaker] Frank Chopp has been much more successful at building that centrist core.

I contacted Jarrett again after his announced party switch to find out how he felt about the state of democracy now that he had thrown in the towel on the GOP's centrism. He replied:

I’ve concluded, I guess, that the governing coalition in this state will be formed within the Democratic Party. This is unfortunate in the sense that a robust two party system provides a discipline on the system. But, the reality is that the decisions about the future of the state, the balance between labor and business, the environment, etc. will be worked out in the Democratic Party. Candidates who’d run as “Evans Republicans” in the past are running as Democrats today (e.g., Judy Clibborn [D-Kirkland], Ross Hunter [D-Medina], Mark Ericks [D-Bothell] and many more).

The challenges for the state GOP are outlined in a couple of recent stories. The Seattle Times has an overview. The bleak picture for Republicans in the legislature in 2008 is due to a number of factors: the unpopularity of George W. Bush, scandals involving GOP legislators, and the Frank Chopp factor, namely Chopp's prowess at finding strong, centrist candidates in swing districts. The result is what former state GOP chair and sometime Crosscut contributor Chris Vance describes as a "rout." The Democrats, he says, "have proven they can win anywhere."

This has left GOP leaders scrambling to catch up while facing more likely losses in 2008. How to claim some shred of victory? Says House Republican leader Richard DeBolt (R-Chehalis)"

"The best we can hope for is that we put our solutions out. They steal the ideas and run them as Democratic ones, and we should all be happy."

In other words, the best they can do is sit back and allow the Frank Chopp strategy to work.

Such spin can't begin to cover the defeatism reflected in that quote. No wonder Jarrett jumped ship. Why stay in a party whose best hope is to have its ideas "stolen" instead of joining the party that's making the deals and getting the credit?

Adding to Republican woes is funding. As the Democrats increase the number of incumbents, they extend their advantage since incumbents are usually more successful at raising money and have a higher winning percentage.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer takes a look at where donations from high-tech PACs are going this election cycle, and sees a decided shift to Democrats for companies like Microsoft, Amazon and T-Mobile. That's partly because the Democrats are in control in Congress and Olympia. But more worrisome for the GOP is the fact that the money now aligns with the politics of the employees of these types of companies.

According to Massie Ritsch of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics:

Calling Western Washington's political donors "a pretty deep shade of blue" for their support of Democrats, Ritsch said the change in power is giving liberals a chance to use the PACs in a more partisan way than they could when Republicans ruled the roost.

"For a lot of companies the change in power has allowed them to show their true colors. ... It's an opportunity to support politicians whom the employees agree with ideologically," he said.

And Ginny Terzano of Microsoft's Washington, DC legislative office:

"We give to the candidates who care about the same issues we care about," said Ginny Terzano, citing trade, immigration reform, intellectual property and "freedom to innovate" as the company's priorities.

She agreed that her industry has increased support for Democrats, but maintained that supporting Democrats' allies is more than just power politics.

"Microsoft's giving philosophy centers around the idea that we support the candidates who work hard on the issues Microsoft cares about," she said.

This all tends to back-up the Jarrett conclusion: the pro-business centrism taking hold in the Democratic party is where the action--and the money--is. It aligns the interests of the region's cutting edge industries as well as those of their urban and suburban-based employees. This makes for a powerful combination that heals the traditional split between labor and management who often have divided loyalties between parties.

The effect is marginalizing the GOP and making the Democrats the party of big business.

It's hard to see how this trend can be reversed in the short-term, sans ground-shaking events like a major scandal or disaster. The state is more liberal than the Republican base and Blue areas (cities and burbs) are the ones that are growing. Our populist impulses seem to be satisfied by the occasional Tim Eyman anti-tax initiative. On the Democratic side, some liberals are impatient with what they see as centrist caution holding back Gregoire and Chopp who are accused of putting of real progressive agenda items on hold until "after the next election." But the power of pragmatism seems to be holding sway for now.

There's really only one party for centrists to be in these days, and both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree which one that is.

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
Centrism could be a fatal disease
Report a violationPosted by: dn on Dec 28, 2007 12:16 PM
Editor's Pick Is a government rooted in pro-business centrism that is given an occasional "populist" nudge from Tim Eyman the ticket to a better future for a growing state? Doubtful. Centrists are by nature cautious. Their proposals will look to short term fixes at the expense of real solutions with lasting value. Even more so if the public falls for Eyman's strategy to gut government.

Take the one percent limit on year-to-year increases in the property tax, a major revenue source for local governments (raising $5 billion in fiscal 2004). The governor and the legislature rushed to enact it after Eyman's initiative was invalidated by the court. One problem: the real costs of government are growing faster than one percent. These costs are reflected in the household inflation index that is running 3 to 4 percent. The difference in property tax revenue collected at a one percent versus a 3 percent limit compounds over 10 years to about a 20 percent revenue reduction.

How will local government pay for basic services beyond the next election? The centrists in Olympia need to think about that.
Final Analysis - on Evans?
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Jan 2, 2008 7:17 AM
Reading between the lines the biggest consequence, if not motivation, of Mercer Island's Jarrett is an endorsement of Gregoire over his Issaquah neighbor Dino Rossi.

Personally, I'm opposed to Gregoire - as far as I'm concerned the question is whether she belongs in jail or not. On the basis of civil accountability, let alone even her membership in the Democratic Party she is unfit.

I knew Jarrett well enough several years ago though to sit up and take notice of his decision - including his specific naming of Chopp as a leader.

Perhaps the partisan Democrats should continue to show the leadership evidenced in their rejection of Gregoire's (and the GSCC's) Sidran in the AG's race and get Chopp, or Sims to run in her stead.

As your 'bi-partisan' lawyer Jenny Durkan once told her 'client' Mike Lowry, it's time to resign. Not even your Republican 'friend', the rightly failed GSCC Republican candidate Mike Vaska can help you - in fact you could start to pay your debt to society by taking the lot of 'em with you. Willingly, or by force of lawful action, your choice.

Call it harrassment if you want. Dan Evans might even back you up on it. But then again, maybe Evan's calling other centrists harrassing wackos is the reason the center is so messed up?

Think on that one for awhile, please. And Mr. Jarrett, best of luck to you.
We have been thinking about it ...
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Dec 29, 2007 6:37 AM
You ask, dn, that centrists think about how local government will pay for basic services when inflation outstrips revenue growth. The increase in costs is only one aspect of the local-government budget discussion, as I suspect you may already know. There are also questions of revenue diversification (has the local government availed itself of other revenue sources), levels of service (what's the communitiy's expectation in terms of commissioned officers, parks per thousand population, frequency of street cleaning, other measures), just to name two.

But representatives on city and county councils also need to consider the fact that taxpayers don't have the option of increasing their revenue so readily, when their costs increase. You cite an inflationary index that has outstripped revenue gains FOR GOVERNMENT. That same inflationary index affects private households, the people who pay taxes, and there's some suspicion that their income gains haven't kept up.

At the core, this is largely about the impact of spiraling health care costs on all of us ... government, business, individuals and families. When we solve that problem, financing local government services will be a whole lot easier.
RE: We have been thinking about it ...
Report a violationPosted by: Cameron on Dec 30, 2007 7:20 PM
Hey Deb nice of you to weigh in. I have concerns about where the State is going to find the 6 Billion Dollars you are short on funding the pension system.
Why are we creating a Rainy Day Fund, when you (the State ) has not in aggregate funded more than 30% of the required amount (by state actuaries) to fully fund the pension system since 2002? Since the revenues have been in surplus for the last biennium, why not take care of the pension obligations first, before increasing spending 33%.
centrism and polarization
Report a violationPosted by: dawgsfan on Dec 30, 2007 1:26 PM
I'm a first time reader of cross cut and will definitely be back. Thanks for the Anatomy of a One Party State article. A couple of comments:

Mr. Jarrett's decision to join the democratic party does not mean the state GOP is in crisis. He is still the same man he was before and his politics have not changed, only his label. The state GOP may or may not be in crisis but Mr. Jarrett's label change is simply an effort by him to maintain his position and win elections (which is fine).

I disagree with the statement "Our ability to maintain a stable democratic government requires that both parties have a robust, centrist core." Democracy flourishes in an environment of honest debate and reasonable cooperation by legislators. I also believe that the two party system gives democracy the best chance of success. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that democracy will benefit from everyone moving to the center on the issues or agreeing with Mr Jarrett. Just because he chooses to be a centrist does not mean that democracy will benefit if all voters agree with him.

I also disagree with the notion that the notion is "more polarized than ever before." Typically this statement comes from democrats that are frustrated with Bush Administration policy and want to label conservative ideas as extremist our outside of the "mainstream." In the last two decades it may be true that the level of polarization has increased compared to Reagan's coalition and landslide victories of the 80's, however if you consider the full 250 years of U.S. history there are many examples of polarizing issues with much greater importance the Gore v Bush in 2000 or the decision to invade Iraq. Examples: the civil war, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, women's suffrage, prohibition, the Cold War. There is no doubt that democrats are vocal and frustrated by Bush however Mr Jarrett's statement that "we've seen the results of polarization" is meaningless.
Response to Cameron
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Dec 31, 2007 9:52 PM
Pension funding and reserve accounts are two different things. Without regard to the pension issue, it is NEVER a bad idea to keep some money in reserve. If revenue forecasts change (which they do, sometimes), a reserve fund permits bridge funding or an orderly 'ramp down', depending on circumstances. Most cities operate with a variety of reserve funds, so it wasn't a hard vote for me. Reserve accounts in cities are also used to provide sinking funds for large-ticket items like roof replacements and the like, which reduces the need for future debt.

I'm not going to get into the pension debate here ('way too esoteric, and it'd raise my blood pressure, I'm sure) ... but I'm concerned about this, too. While it's a complicated topic, with enough moving parts to make a Rube Goldberg machine look simple, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't face this one squarely. But I'd separate it from the question of whether a reserve fund makes sense.
RE: esponse to Cameron
Report a violationPosted by: Cameron on Jan 1, 2008 9:07 AM
Thanks Deb, I work with budgets as well and I am aware of the differences between a Reserve Account and a Pension Fund. I would like to know who made the decision not to fully fund the Pension Plan when we are running a surplus in revenues? How and when is that short fall going to be made up? It appears that the State had adequate revenue to fund the Pension Plan but chose to increase spending in other areas instead, why? What were those other spending priorities and what convinced you they were more important?

Now we have established a Reserve Account (Rainy Day Fund) with a proposed 1.2 Billion dollars for various short term projects and emergencies. Those things could have been done from the General Fund. Touting a "Rainy Day Fund" when the State is forecasting a deficit in 2 years and owes it's own workers Pension Fund 6 Billion seems a bit short sighted. We need fiscal disicpline, I want to know what you and the others in the majority with power to do something about WILL do this session. I see 2 options, cut spending or raise revenues which will it be?
RE: Response to Cameron
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jan 1, 2008 3:23 PM
And therein you have posed the heartburn question. As a freshman legislator, I did a lot of watching, learning last year. There are major differences in city/county councils and the state legislature - including the sheer numbers of votes (98 in the House, 49 in the Senate) and the role that committees play in shaping bills, including the budget. (I suspect you already know this ... :-)) The point is: it sure was easier to tame a city budget!

I don't know how this pension issue is going to be solved ... that's up to the Governor and the Appropriations Committee, with the Finance Committee playing an active part. Alas, I don't serve on any of those committees (although I may get a chance in future years). Certainly, there are some who argue that the pension issue is NOT a current problem, but merely a future one. Maybe so, but the implications for our children's generation gives me wakeful nights and provided at least some of the motivation for getting back into public life.

For the moment, let's hope for the best and return to this topic at the end of session, okay? Believe me, I share your concerns. You can always get me at deb@debeddy.net. /d
RE: esponse to Cameron
Report a violationPosted by: Cameron on Jan 1, 2008 6:33 PM
Deb, thank you for an honest answer, I would expect no less. Good luck in the session.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement