BCT Editorial – 4/11/06

This page was last updated on April 12, 2006.

Protection racket; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 11, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Money and gerrymandering give Republican incumbents a good chance at re-election

“There’s talk going around that the Democrats might be able to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives and make a dent on the GOP’s control of the U.S. Senate.

“Two main factors cited for the Democratic Party’s hopes are President Bush’s dismal approval rating and the public’s disenchantment with the Republican-controlled Congress, which has an approval rating that makes Bush’s look pretty good.”

[RWC] Did you note the “hopes” are not based on any platform offered by Democrats? In essence, it appears the Democrat slogan is “We’re not them.”

“Despite that, don’t be surprised if Republicans are still in control of both chambers post Nov. 7.

“One reason they have an excellent chance of keeping control of the House is gerrymandering. While the political reapportionment of congressional districts has been part of American government since the beginning, it has gotten particularly sophisticated in the last decades.”

[RWC] Translation: While it was OK for Democrats to gerrymander districts for over 60 years to keep their seats, it’s wrong for Republicans to do so.

“As a result, congressional incumbents, with a willing assist from their counterparts in state legislatures, have districts drawn up in such a way that it is almost impossible for a challenger to defeat them.”

[RWC] The author skips over the point that the only difference between now and then is Republicans are doing it instead of Democrats in states that have turned from “blue” to “red.” The author ignores the fact that gerrymandering favoring Democrats is still going on in so-called “blue” states.

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the main architects of the GOP’s sweep to power in 1994, recognizes the great harm that gerrymandering is doing to American politics and government.

“The Washington Post reports Gingrich now believes his party has lost its way and gotten into trouble because it has become too preoccupied with creating and maintaining safe GOP districts as part of an effort to cement a lasting majority.”

[RWC] Actually, the Republican Party got into trouble by veering away from conservative principles. Far too many of today’s elected Republicans campaign on conservative principles then govern much further to the left.

“Gingrich, a flawed but fascinating individual, thinks that tactic has had the effect of undermining democracy and distancing House members from their roots.”

[RWC] By “flawed but fascinating” the editorial author means “As a Republican, Gingrich is the scum of the Earth, but I like what he said so I’ll give him credibility this one time.”

“Democrats ‘get to rip off the public in the states where they control and protect their incumbents, and we get to rip off the public in the states we control and protect our incumbents, so the public gets ripped off in both circumstances,’ Gingrich said. ‘In the long run, there’s a downward spiral of isolation.’

“A second reason Republican incumbents have a good chance of being re-elected is special-interest money. Basically, they have access to huge amounts of it while their challengers don’t. That allows them to buy radio and television ads that allow them to set the agenda and control the debate.”

[RWC] Never let it be said the Times lets facts get in the way. In 2004, while the RNC raised more contributions than the DNC, Democrat-leaning 527s more than made up the difference. 15 of the top 20 527s in 2004 favored Democrats and outraised the five Republican leaning 527s $359 million to $85 million.

“The incumbency protection racket has changed enormously since 1994, when Republicans picked up 52 House seats. The results of the Nov. 7 election will show us how much.”

[RWC] The author is wrong. The only difference is Republicans today have a better chance to protect their seats.

Don’t get me wrong; I oppose gerrymandering regardless of who’s in power. The point of the critique is to show the hypocrisy of the editorial author. In summary, the author apparently believes a strategy that’s OK for Democrats is a “protection racket” when employed by Republicans.

I wonder how many editorials like this the Times published when Democrats exclusively controlled gerrymandering?