In the transformation of
politics, in a functioning representative democracy this comes from the bottom
up. That is, as change sweeps the grassroots, it changes the matrix of
candidates available and ultimately those successful, in turn eventually
translating into policy change. But it occurs most slowly at the lowest levels
of government because of the asymmetry of information availability.
Specifically, for the mass public there is less information about politics available
at the local levels, in part because there is less interest among the public (because,
unless directly impacted, what local governments do seem less important in the
world and often are seen as less controversial) and because existing elites, incumbents
in particular, face reduced competition in provision of information and
therefore find it easier to combat opposing views.
Transformation becomes blunted at
the lowest level, providing shelter for elites as the world changes around
them, as the public has greater difficult in learning of elite actions, of the
consequences of those actions, and in connecting the two. As transformation
occurs, the disconnection between policy desired by the public and
policy-makers’ actions must yawn to a greater extent before the public begins
to place responsibility onto the policy-makers in question, and to sanction them
for deviations. In Louisiana, the contradictions between liberal populism and
principled conservatism started becoming clear enough to provoke a substantial electoral
response at the national level about 25 years ago, while at the state level it
began about a decade ago.
This is why in Louisiana the
state’s electoral transformation occurred initially, and now most completely, at
the level of federal office where, because only Sen. Mary Landrieu remains as
an elected Democrat in constituencies not overwhelmingly demographically friendly
to her party, it has become almost dominant. At the state level, that all state
executive offices, single and collectively, are now under Republican control,
as is the Legislature, demonstrates the transformation has matured at that
level also.
But that has not been the case in
the aggregate at the local level, especially in the more rural, less
economically-developed areas of the state, as the societal changes which have
pushed Louisiana away from populism have taken longer to penetrate those
places. It’s inevitably coming (short of a massive population shift), but the
factors above explain its slower pace.
Which is what Landrieu hopes is
enough to help her cling to office for a fourth term. By far, she is the
biggest officeholder-to-environment contradiction in Louisiana politics today.
Her 18 years of service in the Senate shows an extraordinarily
liberal voting record that has become more and more painfully out of step
with the state’s majority as the transformation has proceeded, and makes her
more and more dependent upon fig leaves to try to cover that.
She managed to pick up one this
week, the endorsement
of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association. The
political calculus here works like this: Landrieu = liberal, but sheriffs = law
and order, therefore sheriffs = conservative, and if Landrieu = sheriffs, then
Landrieu = conservative. But it’s nowhere near that simple.
As empowered under the state
constitution, sheriffs have the most to gain or lose by populism of any local
office in the state. Except in the few parishes with parish chief executives,
they act as the only parish-wide official with any extensive policy-making power
or budgets. Thus, they become the point people for interacting with both state
and federal governments in many areas and thereby more sensitive than otherwise
not only to policy made in these areas that affects local jurisdiction, but
also they deal more with the lifeblood of populism – the people’s money lifted
from them by taxation (now, or later in the case of federal debt).
Sheriffs run big money operations
– they collect taxes parish-wide, they auction off repossessed property, and most
run prisons, many
of which are cash cows. Most significantly, they gained homeland security responsibilities
– and the gusher of federal dollars that came with it – after 2001. And under
austere conditions, they want someone more likely than less to promote
government policy that expands government the way populism asks that it does so
that they enjoy the trickle down. That’s Landrieu, not her main opponent Republican
Rep. Bill Cassidy who has said
he sees and endorses a transformation away from populism.
That attitude is largely
reflected in that over half of all sheriffs identify themselves as Democrats,
even as many of them come from parishes where the majority of or only state
representative(s) or senator(s) are Republicans. That’s because as long as they
project a law-and-order image and make sure the tax or grant dollars pass
through to the right agencies and elites in government, it doesn’t matter to much
of the larger public what their allegiances are. With information about local
government operations at a premium for the mass public, it’s easier for them to
project the image they want that can keep them in office. And it’s not like
Cassidy would launch into a vendetta against them should he win.
So if the calculation is that
Landrieu is a more secure pipeline to money, and that a public weary of
Landrieu’s liberalism won’t know or care that sheriffs share her label and
ideas on many issues as long as these parish chief law enforcement officers
fight crime, and local elites back them, and Cassidy can be mollified, then
there’s little political cost to them for this endorsement. Until that
situation changes, they will behave the same.
The irony, of course, is that the
same dynamics that give sheriffs’ power in their local areas make their endorsement
next to meaningless in this kind of contest in this era. Fifty years ago, when
scarcely a Republican ran for federal office, much less state or local, even in
a senatorial contest a sheriff’s endorsement meant something to distinguish
among Democrats running for office, the candidates for whom many voters might
see a newspaper advertisement here or there, might catch one on radio, but
probably would not see one on television or attend a rally where the candidate
or another surrogate might show up. Obviously today, with so many other cues
out there, and with meaningful inter-party competition drawing upon the
strongest of the cues which only recently became meaningful, hardly anybody
pays attention to them. And any logistical support any sheriffs choose to give
her barely will matter against the resources brought to bear by the Cassidy
campaign, party organizations allied with him, and other interest groups
supporting him.
Cassidy has called this election,
using different words, a kind of test of whether the state’s electorate has
matured into a post-populist environment. The only practical impact of this endorsement
is to strengthen confidence in being able to use this election for that
purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment