No New Moderates II

One of my themes over the last few years has been the unintended consequences of Clean Elections;  the financing scheme empowers conservatives.  This post from last  August 31st is a great example.

I called the post "No New Moderates."

Legacy moderates survive but they are endangered.  I've mentioned before that Conservatives always had a natural base and an army of supporters but they couldn't get past the Chamber of Commerce types who controlled the money.  Those gatekeepers are now meaningless.

With equal money, the candidate with the natural base and supporters will beat the candidate who happens to be a lobbyist favorite. 

Allen (and Hellon) may survive one more cycle, or they may go the way of Binder, Mead, Jayne and half a dozen others.  But I think we have seen the end of moderates beating conservatives for open seats.  There may be the occasional throwback, but when the legacy moderates are gone, the breed will die. 

Another great example of this trend occurred in the District 8 primary to replace Colette Rosati in the House.  The District is represented by moderate Republicans Carolyn Allen in the Senate and Michele Reagan in the House.

Under the old finance regime, the open seat should have gone to Former Scottsdale Councilman James Burke.  Burke is a Doctor and chose to run under the traditional financing system.  The role of the conservative in this drama is played by John Kavanagh, a retired New York Port Authority policeman, a criminal justice professor at Scottsdale Community College and a former Fountain Hills councilman.  He calls immigration his "first and second priorities" and he is the author of the website ProtectAZborder.  He was endorsed by Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio. 

This race was the perfect example of a conservative using Clean Elections to run against a well-funded moderate for an open seat.  Burke managed to raise nearly $60,000, most of it from doctors.  Clean Elections handed Kavanagh a check for over $58,000.   

Kavanagh used much of the money to send out this mailer Download kavanagh_postcard.pdf

The race wasn't even close.

Some will argue that there were several other moderate candidates who split the vote.  That's true, but under the old regime the lesser known moderate candidates wouldn't have had any money to get out their message. 

I had coffee with Representative Elect John Kavanagh last Friday and I asked about his race.  His immediate response was..."Thank god for Clean Elections."

Money used to be the mechanism to separate the wheat from the chafe, the solid candidates from the fringe candidates.  The ability to raise money empowered moderates.  That's gone now. 

Don't get me wrong, Kavanagh is a fine candidate and he's going to make an excellent Representative.  But he wouldn't be in office without Clean Elections. 

Since I wrote that post in August, Al Melvin used Clean Elections money to defeat Toni Hellon.  Melvin, of course, lost the General Election, but even Democrats are conceding that District 26 will go Republican in the next election cycle.  Will a moderate win the Republican primary in two years?  I don't think so. 

I will repeat my point from last August. 

There may be the occasional throwback, but when the legacy moderates are gone, the breed will die. 

Comments

[Teddio]

I sincerely hope you're correct about the pending extinction of this strange liberal Democrat hybrid called "Republican moderates." I don't know...I think as long as there are Country Clubs and rich white women in Scottsdale, the WISH List breeding ground is somewhat secure.

[Ahwatukee Kid]

What the conservatives need to be careful of is that they win with grace. In other words, win without demonizing their fellow GOPers... They don't need to do it to win and I agree with Greg's point that they will win (which pleases me greatly!) True, the left won't treat them nearly as nicely along the way, but while the GOP can survive with just the right and center, it can't lose the center as well...

[Scott]

Despite Teddy's remark, this loss of "moderate" Republicans can't be good for the party.

As AK notes, you can't lose the center and win elections (this holds true for Dems as well, of course). The more centrist (or independent) voters see Republican candidates swinging to the right, the less inclined they will be to vote for _any_ R candidate.

It's a real balancing act -- more extreme candidates tend to win primaries, but they need to be moderate enough to win the general as well (at least in reasonably competitive districts).

Looking at AZ 8, for example, of the three major primary candidates the Dem's nominated arguably the most centrist of the three. On the other side of the fence, of the three major primary candidates, the R's nominated the most extreme of the three.

We all know the result.

[Joe Baby]

I don't have a problem with the reality of trying to maintain support of both the conservative and moderate blocks of the GOP, but I think there is some merit to the idea that the conservative nominees don't get party support in the general election.

As much as the conservative wing needs to win with grace and not antagonize the moderate wing, the moderates need to support and come out in force for conservative candidates in the general election.

[Ahwatukee Kid]

Actually, keeping the right and middle together does not mean coddling the left. Thanks to the Arizona Republic, it is now accepted that there is only the "extreme" right and the moderates in the Republican Party. The Republic and some of the folks posting here ignore the Republican Left. The fact is that R mods are fewer in number than R lefties. You can be ok with a Michele Reagan or John McComish but the Party would be better off without Jennifer Burns or Pete Hershberger. They are full-on lefties who work against the caucus and the party's principles in the legislature and they should not be spared by party primaries, etc. Nor should the GOP fear "alienating" the left. As 2006 showed us, the Republican left is openly hostile to its own party in any case. LD26 is a case in point. Watch the Clean Elections debate and you'll see Hershberger attacking his fellow Republican more often than the Democrat on the stage does. Yet this was after a relatively calm and gracious primary. Hershberger simply preferred a Dem to a conservative Republican.

Nor is this unique to the Republican Party. The Dems have as little tolerance and use for the Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans as we do our Lincoln Chafees... So long as Miller is a Democrat and Chafee is a Republican, we can't blame the public at large for not being able to tell the parties apart.

[Rex]

PLEASE make the same mistake in LD26 (and other state and fedral races) in 2008 that you did this year! Unless you stop the purge of anyone but the hard right from the GOP, you'll lose this district again and other "safe" GOP districts will also be seized by Democrats...as long as my new party is not taken over by those on the far left, who throw around the DINO label with the same frequency as you conservatives bash your moderate brethren.

As a former Republican (left in 2000) and a resident of LD26, I am certain that a GOP nominee in the Graf/Melvin/Jorgenson mold will get their ears pinned back down here, especially with the Dems running as incumbents. Similarly, neither Giffords nor Mitchell will lose to someone with narrow appeal and an exclusive mindset.

Reagan was fond of saying that "someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend and your ally, not some 20% traitor." It seems to me that GOP moderates part company with the Right primarily on social issues, support for public education and (in some cases) Second Amendment rights. They are also more inclined to look at tax cuts as a means for economic stimulus, not with a knee-jerk approach that makes a mockery of the party's former adherence to fiscal discipline. For this heresy, you seek to oust the lot of them.

Well, by all means keep it up! The party that can seize the "sensible center" will be the one winning in 2008 and beyond with the decennial census coming up in 2010. Democrats can take advantage of the fact that Republicans are forming circular firing squads...provided they stop treating loyal party members with the disdain they showed Lieberman in Connecticut!

[Rex]

Ahwatukee Kid, if you think that the LD26 Republicans had a "relatively calm and gracious primary," then you are offering proof that you don't live here! Both Melvin and Jorgenson attacked Hershberger on their websites and at GOP gatherings during the primary. The Clean Elections debate after the primary featured a hypocritical attempt by Jorgenson to present a united GOP front as he hoped to ride Hershberger's coattails to victory. Hershberger was having none of it after the mud that had been lobbed his way in the primary, but he also did not endorse Saradnik, the Democrat, in any way. If the campaign websites are still up, take a look at the overt and subtle slams at Hershberger (and Senator Hellon) on the Melvin and Jorgenson websites. The latter two lost because they were too extreme for our district, plain and simple.

[Ann]

So, what pigeon-hole does the person fit in who vehemently supports public education but appreciates the open market, believes in tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy and in a limited government thus limited government spending, no on special tax credits as a whole, and is pro-life?

[Ahwatukee Kid]

Actually Ann, don't try to pigeon-hole any such person. That's the point...

Moreover, those are big issues, but not the only ones. Its not enough data. Plus, supporting public education is good (a GOP position), but is the person also supportive of parental choice in education (also a GOP position)? Both education issues, both important, but merely supporting public education doesn't tell us enough. No on tax credits doesn't tell us anything either. They might disagree with specific tax credits or they might be in the Marion McClure mold of opposing all tax credits, period.

Too many questions to tell you leftie, mod or rightie, etc. But why the rush to pigeon hole?

For Rex, the LD26 primary wasn't all that harsh compared to other primaries (LD8, LD21, LD22, etc). And in those other cases the GOP came back together and held all of their seats. But not in LD26. Granted, the I's broke hard against the GOP everywhere as a result of what was going on at the national level and in any other year Melvin would have won anyway. But less than 500 votes means less than 250 people changing their minds and there were at least those many leftie R's in the district who bailed on the ticket. Lefties, not mods...

[Ahwatukee Kid]

And please Rex, give the tired-old stereotype of "Republicans hate public schools" a rest. No one gets targeted in the GOP for supporting public schools. That is simply a lie. You left the party and openly root for the GOP to lose in your posts, so we're not going to take your advice too seriously, but... The same ol' "GOP hates children, old people, public schools, etc." shtick gets boring fast...

Fact: Republicans increased public education spending by nearly one billion dollars in the 2006 budget alone. Republicans passed teacher pay increases as well.

Republicans also care about the low-income and foster kids who got new scholarships thanks to the Republicans, and over the objections of your new party, which wanted to keep them in failing schools to feed the bureaucracy.

While the GOP looks to give parents control over their children's education so that they can send them to the best schools possible and get them the best education possible, the Democrat Party and the unions that control it are more than happy to sentence another generation or two to failing schools if it fattens their wallets. Shame on them and those who support their anti-child agenda.

[Ann]

AK, please help me out... the GOP supports public education,....then why is it I so often feel like the ONLY R in the crowd that thinks the starting point for choice to be a true thing, and not just a buzz word, is the quality, locally controlled neighborhood public school? Why do "R" legislators write bills that start out with lines like, "Public schools in Arizona are in crisis" and then go on to call for a huge voucher program in that legislation?

I am not a money-grubbing educrat. I do believe there is so much more we could do in our schools. The teacher's union has made a mockery of many districts and while they would call themselves an educational organization, they are in fact a labor union and serve only their membership. But I also accept it is a cultural change that is first needed, and that starts with the support of leadership by saying our schools are valuable enough to save and our country is better served if we do, then putting actions behind their words.

Those that would abandon our public schools in favor of vouchers and tax credits for private schools are the true culprits who should be shamed for their anti-child agenda. Every child deserves a quality education, despite what ever failings the adults in their lives may have. Thomas Jefferson said the better educated a people the better prepared they are for self-governance. Then he went on to call for, and describe, a locally controlled public school system whereby all could be educated to the best of their ability.

So, what happens when "the best schools possible" have no more room and the vouchers are taken? What about the kid whose parents both work and can't drive them to the "best schools" and must be content to have them in the "regular" public school? The evidence of market driven competition causing increases in both public and private have not been proven, in fact in DC it has had no effect.

Wouldn't it just be better to have true reform than this piecemeal approach to trying to fix this and that without really fixing anything? The Repubicans could go far this session if instead of vouchers and tax credits, it didn't help Laura Knaperak, they would concentrate on true educational reform. Take "education" away from the Governor and make some really positive strides toward improving the educational opportunities for every child in every classroom.

[Ahwatukee Kid]

Ann, the Guv won't let you take education away from her. And I'm not sure that you could do so constitutionally. Local control is great (very GOP). And quality schools is also very GOP. But those are goals you share with your GOP brethren. So quit being so down on us!

Where you go south on us is with the phrase "Those who would abandon our public schools in favor of vouchers and tax credits for private schools..."

The statement itself is not fact, its just your slant on the facts. No one has ever proposed "abandoning" our public schools but that doesn't stop the Arizona Republic and folks like you from repeating the mantra until you have the masses convinced (or perhaps they repeated it and now you are simply one of the convinced masses?). In fact, in spite of steps taken to improve choice for parents, our per pupil spending on public school students continues to rise, now approaching $9,000 per student per year according to the Goldwater Institute. Their figures include the money we can easily see (from the Legislature) and the money the Governor does not readily provide details about (from the Federal Government).

There are two issues that we're trying to deal with. Fixing the quality of our public schools and trying to save all of the kids who might otherwise be trapped in bad schools in the meantime. If just spending more money was the solution, America as a whole wouldn't have a bad school anywhere. As GOPers, we recognize that just feeding the beast (unions and bureaucracy) isn't the solution, so we look to the free market.

If parents have choices, they will pick the best schools. Yes, as you point out, those schools will fill up and then "what happens to the rest of the students." Yet you indicate that the solution to this "injustice" is not to save some and not others, but rather, save none so that all are equally screwed for the rest of their lives. I suppose that's one kind of fair, but your Party and I disagrees with you.

As the good schools fill up with parents seeking the best for their children, the worst schools will see declining enrollment. This is the union's worst nightmare because funding is tied to enrollment. Like any other failing business, those local schools must adapt or fail, to be replaced by better schools. The notion that thousands of Arizona kids aren't going to have anywhere to go to school is simply nuts. The market always meets the need. Good teachers will branch out together to create additional private or charter schools, assured of a stream of students who will be able to afford the tuition (private and charter are almost universally cheaper than public). Better schools, better taught students, QED...

By fostering choice and giving parents options, your GOPers are forcing public schools to improve. Left to their own devices, the public schools would continue to deteriorate because they operate in an environment that does nothing to encourage improvement. In the meantime, your GOPers are also constantly increasing funding to the public schools to ensure that they have the resources to improve. Frankly, they already have enough money. Studies fail to link money to performance (otherwise D.C. would have the best schools in the country instead of some of the worst, and many of the best state's in education have the least per-student funding). I think they increase the funding so that they can't be accused of being "anti-schools". The shame of it is, they end up so accused anyway, even by fellow GOPers who should know better.

Does this help?

[Ahwatukee Kid]

Also Ann, you say the GOP wants "huge" voucher programs, yet the last one was a measly $5 Million. Compared to an education budget measured in BILLIONS, can that really be considered huge?

And you call for "true reform" without suggesting anything. How would you fix it?

[Ann]

AK, I truly am not looking for a fight, so while the written word carries no tone or inflection, as you read it imagine I am NOT angry but passionate...Thanks for the effort but your explanation is the very thing I see as counter productive to locally controlled neighborhood schools of high quality. Not to mention logistically unfounded:

"As the good schools fill up with parents seeking the best for their children, the worst schools will see declining enrollment. This is the union's worst nightmare because funding is tied to enrollment. Like any other failing business, those local schools must adapt or fail, to be replaced by better schools. The notion that thousands of Arizona kids aren't going to have anywhere to go to school is simply nuts. The market always meets the need. Good teachers will branch out together to create additional private or charter schools, assured of a stream of students who will be able to afford the tuition (private and charter are almost universally cheaper than public). Better schools, better taught students, QED..."

Dissected, I see this:
1) "As the good schools fill up with parents seeking the best for their children, the worst schools will see declining enrollment."

What good schools, where are they allowing "out of area" students to enroll? The "good schools" are at maximum capacity and will not allow additional students. So, who is meeting the needs of those students now? Why isn't it already happening to the degree you describe? There are thousands of students in poorly performing schools across this state, what about them...what about now?

2)The notion that thousands of Arizona kids aren't going to have anywhere to go to school is simply nuts.

The notion that they will implies a different paradigm to the local neighborhood public school. It implies private or charter. Again, a much different paradigm. And how quickly will they be built, how will they be staffed, how will they be paid? And what about rural Arizona? Ahwatukee may have a surplus of opportunity but the rural parent has neither the resources nor the opportunity for anything other than the local, public school.

Your answer:
"The market always meets the need. Good teachers will branch out together to create additional private or charter schools, assured of a stream of students who will be able to afford the tuition (private and charter are almost universally cheaper than public). Better schools, better taught students, QED..."

This very statement undermines the principle I am supporting; the reform of our current system with the necessary changes to make it successful. To throw the baby out with the bath water is not the answer.

The rest of that statement is, respectfully, flawed. The Goldwater Institute study gave generalities of comparison. They did not take into consideration the additional fees charged to parents that public schools must use the ADM to cover. It did not take into account the volunteer support that is not so voluntary...the mandatory time a parent must give to the school. It did not take into account the huge costs of special education that private schools do not have to offer but public schools must. If you look at every private school in Arizona and compare to public; take away the expenses that are expected and paid for by public schools, sports, band, special ed, ELL, etc... that they do offer and private offset with other methods, public schools are less expensive. There is not a private high school within 50 miles of my home that would accept my son and not cost me more in fees and tuition than the local public school gets in ADM for my general ed student. Not an anecdotal belief but based on my actual research.

The most troubling statement of all is the assertion that these new found private schools would be "assured of a stream of students who will be able to afford the tuition". But why should they and what about the kid who can't? Again, this is counterproductive to the model of a locally controlled public school that is accessible to the children in the community without hardship to the parent or child.

Friend, the one idea that I absolutely agree with is this, "Fixing the quality of our public schools and trying to save all of the kids who might otherwise be trapped in bad schools in the meantime." This is how the Republicans take education away from the Governor. And it is the legislature NOT the Governor who has that charge in the first place. The states were given full authority over education and not until the 1960's did the feds even touch schools. ARS Title 15 governs education, any changes to that must be through the legislature. The Governor has taken it away more out of a fumble or an interception, and now it is time to capitalize on her possession and force a turn over. The real stakeholders should be brought together, and the union is not a stakeholder...they represent an organization that supports something other than the intended beneficiary. Not to mean no teachers but the AEA is not the voice of teachers, it is the voice of a labor union which represents teacher in its membership. It is the only alphabet soup educational organization that is a labor union, all others are professional organizations.

IF.... the GOP would use their significant strength to become more of an advocate for reform and not the advocate for change for change sake; embrace the reality of what we have and who it is intended to serve. Perceptions aside, ideology aside, previous lines in the sand erased.... advocacy for children first! We have the ability and capacity to provide excellence to our children and it is not a funding issue. However, as long as we continue to make a patchwork quilt out of Title 15, we will never know what is working and what is failing. Too many special interests, too many short sighted attempts to fix some microcosmic speck of a problem that leads to greater problems... too much posturing without real experience or data too analyze actual success or failures.

I am not slamming anybody, but the Republican led legislature has not taken the bull by the horns but rather grabbed hold of the tail and is being thrown all over the place. Every session for the past 3 years there has been a voucher bill to allow for wholesale money to the kid no questions asked; but the bills to overhaul education, or even just take hard look gets stopped or are nothing but a strike-all vehicle for later. Nothing happens! Until budget time and then the trading starts, there is no need for such a long legislative session. Just have a month long budget negotiation and be done with it, that is what it all boils down to anyway.

Our children have become the political pawn of all branches of our government. Isn't it time we just said STOP!!!

[Ahwatukee Kid]

I hear you, 'though I disagree. And that's okay, because at least we're talking about it like civilized folks!

What do you think of the 65% initiative to direct at least 65% of education dollars into the classroom? Arizona is somewhere around 56-58 cents per dollar right now.

And its okay if you haven't suggested any specific solutions because you don't have any, but if you do, please let us hear them. New ideas are always a good thing!

[Ann]

While I do not think money is the answer to all needs, it sure does help. I heard Jon Kyl speak this year and he said money doesn’t buy everything, but try to buy anything without it. I think the 65% initiative is OK, or even good, as long as the dollars equate comparatively; such as the regionalized dollars per student versus the simple dollar for dollar comparison. Then we have the discrepant per student dollars. Example: if a state is allocating $10,000 per student (not averaged but actual) and allocates 65% to the classroom that is not the same as a state that allocates $6,000 per student based on parity of regionalized dollars. Arizona is so far below the average in per student (actual not averaged) spending the services that would be cut to reach 65% are valuable and necessary. Try to tell Mesa parents that coaches will be cut out, or there is no money for new football uniforms. I would not want to be at that school board meeting!

I was in on an analysis of a district that was looking to see what or where to make the cuts to get to 65%, there was no way to accomplish it without putting a severe strain on student services that have a strong correlation to student achievement. This is exactly what I think needs to be done, though. We have had so many ideas and theories with no real examination of the whole picture that now we have a muddy mess; snapshots and anecdotal accounts with knee jerk reactions. A realistic, not minimum, set of standards needs to be established based on real data and real life and local needs in mind. Take the best practices and replicate them, look at areas where increases are not just possible but morally obligated, and take away where it is clearly poor stewardship.

[Aaron]

The legislative Democratic candidates had a better and more consistent message this time than their Republican counterparts. Remember of course that elections are cyclical. I'd say I am a Dem who is to the left of Lieberman but to the right of Wes Clark....somewhere in that category.

One thing I think is really important is not to treat people like "kooks" just because they think differently than I do. Both sides should try that approach and try to understand why people feel the way they do.

[Gretchen Wagenseller]

Very interesting. Keep blogging!

One problem that also needs to be addressed--perhaps through some kind of mentoring program [like the one that Charlene Pesquiera, the new LD 26 state senator, previously spearheaded] for those kids whose parents or parent are too busy [both working one or more jobs] or unconcerned with their kids education. When my sister moved to North Carolina, she originally had her first-grader kid in public school and my sister volunteered as a teacher's aide [her husband made enough income that she didn't have to work for pay]. My sister found that there were many kids who regularly were not doing their homework. In 1st grade, it is really the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids do their homework, and these parents had abdicated their responsibility for their children. The parents need to step up to the plate--not fair to dump all of the blame on the school system.

[Ann]

Very good point, Aaron. If original or obscurely inspired thought was always dismissed, we would be writing these posts on the town square kiosk instead of the “net”. As a fairly conservative Republican and I use that label with pride, I find too often “liberals” will pre-determine my words and thoughts to be off-base and begin to frame a counter to my comments before ever hearing me out. Interestingly, I have had occasion to represent my views in front of “the powers that be” without their knowledge of my political persuasion. It is a constant that those on all sides of the political spectrum will begin to pre-judge my words based on whatever polarized camp they believe I am from. So, when I speak to an issue that is the usual cause du joir of less conservative folk than me, it is assumed I am a Dem or liberal, when it is just my thought born of my belief in what is right. And conversely, when I have met with groups “from the other side” that know my background they assume I will be counter-productive to their beliefs prior to ever hearing a word.

My previous postings with AK, is a good indication of the various visions held within a group on one very important issue. The answer is probably in the melding of the highs and the discarding of the lows of each. But the entrenchment of position will always prevent real movement forward.

The ability to post in a civil manner without revealing our resume’ is one way to dialogue openly. The ephemeral attention to issues by many does not lend itself to the promotion of ideas but of knee jerk reactionary action.