Shrader Op/Ed in Clarion Ledger: American Voters Prefer Centrist Approach

 I am grateful for the Clarion Ledger in Jackson for carrying my op/ed on the current mood of the American electorate:

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/2021/11/21/research-shows-american-voters-more-centrist-open-compromise/8654476002/

Restore Public Trust in SCOTUS with Retention Elections

During the Spring 2021 semester I taught a new course I created called Controversies in American Politics. The class was designed to allow students to read about and discuss issues pertaining to the design and structure of American politics and political institutions from a historical and developmental perspective.

We generally avoided most policy issues because those are debated ad nauseum without us adding another layer to whether or not we need more or less gun control. Instead, the class analyzed things such as the constitutional design of the Electoral College, the powers of the presidency, the structure of Congress, the development of the two-party system, and the staffing of the federal bureaucracy. We even had a cool research paper written on whether all states would be better off applying the Napoleonic Code as is the custom in Louisiana!

Ever since that class concluded in May 2021, I have been thinking about a design-driven, middle ground solution to address the question of growing politicization and perceived bias related to the U.S. Supreme Court. We don’t need reams of data to tell us what every observer of American politics has understood for quite some time: the politicization of the United States federal courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court is especially problematic and poses a genuinely vexing problem for our country moving forward.

The Quinnipiac University polling data below from www.pollingreport.com only goes back to early 2003, but the share of American voters who say they disapprove of the way SCOTUS is handling its job has risen over the past 18 years. In early 2003 the court held a positive net rating of +29 (those who approve minus those who disapprove) while as of this month it sits at a negative net rating of -12. The court’s overall approval rating has waxed and waned over this time period, but their net rating remained consistently positive until June 2008, recovered briefly, but has been inching downward in 2012, 2013, and 2021 despite a brief uptick in 2020.

Likewise, from 2010 onward the share of voters saying SCOTUS is too liberal has declined while those reporting that it is too conservative has increased significantly with fewer saying the court’s ideological positioning is “about right.”

My purpose here is not to catalog the already exhaustive list of political and policy reasons why the courts are becoming (and are perceived to be) more political, but to instead introduce a suggestion for how to modernize SCOTUS without the drastic steps that have been discussed recently among some politicians such as imposing term limits or having the president pack the court to achieve ideological parity. Perhaps a less extreme approach is in order.

According to the University of Denver’s Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), 21 states currently utilize some form of system of judicial retention for sitting judges. The way it works is that a judge is either appointed or elected (depending on the state) to a fixed term. Following their initial appointment or election they must stand before the voters for a retention vote and the public is given the option of either voting “yes” or “no” on retaining said jurist for another fixed term of the same length.

That’s it. There is are no partisan primaries, head-to-head elections to endure, or anything of that nature. The voters decide whether a jurist deserves another term or not. If they agree, they vote yes. If they disagree with keeping them on, they vote no.

IAALS says that one major benefit of this system is that “judges do not face opponents in retention elections, they usually do not need to raise money and conduct campaigns. At the same time, special interest groups are not as active in retention elections as they are in contested elections because a good judge’s performance speaks for itself. Although special interest groups can spend money to oust a judge they do not like, they cannot select a replacement who fits their particular agenda because the judicial nominating commission is tasked with selecting nominees to fill vacancies.”

Realistically, a process by which SCOTUS justices must stand for a retention vote—say at the ten-year mark of their initial confirmation—will most certainly draw the attention and activism of special interest groups. That’s just the nature of the beast and should be expected. However, as a democratic pluralist, I welcome the opportunity for citizen-driven organizations, interest groups representing actual voters, and individual voters themselves to weigh in on whether or not a judge ought to be kept on the job for another term. After all, these are the courts that play a vital role in the lives of all citizens.

While I am not completely convinced this is a system will ever come to pass with regard to Supreme Court justices, I think it deserves some attention, time, and contemplation. As the public’s perceptions of SCOTUS shift in a more negative direction it may be that such an infusion of participatory democracy by the voters could help remedy the situation.

Think about it—Justice Amy Coney Barrett assumed office on October 20, 2020 to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In my hypothetical plan, she would face a retention vote sometime before her ten-year mark in October 2030. Should she receive 50% plus one vote she is retained for an additional ten-year term on the Supreme Court. Should she receive less she is replaced by a new presidential nominee. The voters decide—based on whatever metric they see fit—whether she should stay or go.

Such a plan allows for public input into the courts, acknowledges the political nature of the courts that some still seem to deny to this day, enables the voters to temper the clubby judicial  politics of Washington, allows for the imposition of a soft “term limit” without forcing judges off the bench in an arbitrary way, and embraces the nation’s participatory political spirit without subjecting United States Supreme Court justices to the rigors of an actual, national head-to-head election campaign. It may also make voters feel somewhat greater confidence in the institution if they are able to have some say in who serves within it.

I doubt this this plan will come to pass, but perhaps it is an idea worth debating.

Y'all Politics Features Shrader Op-Ed on Ballot Initiative Reform

My op-ed on the important topic of carefully reforming Mississippi's ballot initiative process ran in Y'all Politics on July 9, 2021. I am hopeful that the Mississippi Legislature will move cautiously in revamping the ballot initiative process to prevent the continuation of "overvoting," which allows voters who oppose amending the state constitution to then dictate the policy option they prefer despite not wanting to move forward at all. You can read the entire piece here: https://yallpolitics.com/2021/07/09/shrader-overvoting-threatens-legitimacy-of-ballot-initiative-process/.

Shrader Joins Former U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper on WJTV/CBS Show

This morning I had the opportunity to join my friend Byron Brown for this week's episode of MISSISSIPPI INSIGHT on WJTV, Mississippi's CBS affiliate. I enjoyed appearing alongside my former US Congressman, Gregg Harper to tackle some of the big issues we are facing such as the January 6 Commission, COVID-19 vaccinations in Mississippi, voting rights, and more! 

https://www.wjtv.com/video/mississippi-insight-for-june-6-2021/6691806/

OPENING DAY 2021! Shrader's Official MLB Season Predictions

NL East	NL Central	NL West
Mets	Cubs	Dodgers
Nationals	Brewers	Padres
Braves	Cardinals	Giants
Phillies	Reds	Diamondbacks
Marlins	Bucs	Rockies
Wild Card 1:	Wild Card 2:
Brewers	Padres
Pennant:
Dodgers over Mets
AL East	AL Central	AL West
Yankees	White Sox	Astros
Red Sox	Twins	Angels
Rays	Royals	A's
Blue Jays	Indians	Rangers
Orioles	Tigers	Mariners
Wild Card 1:	Wild Card 2:
Twins	Red Sox
Pennant:
Yankees over Astros
WORLD SERIES
Dodgers over Yankees

In case anyone has forgotten! 

SOLIDARITY: Biden Backs Amazon Union in AL

 This is just breaking now, but I wanted to take a moment to say how wonderfully exciting it is that President Biden has formally endorsed the efforts of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) to unionize the Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama. President Biden's statement may be the most important presidential remarks made on the subject of labor unions in decades. Please take a moment to listen the two minute and twenty second remarks here. I sincerely hope that this is the turning point that leads to victory.

My Inauguration Eve Remarks about President Biden's Looming Challenge

Dr. Nathan R. Shrader

Chair, Millsaps College Department of Government and Politics

Remarks at New England College Pre-Inauguration College Convention

January 19, 2021 @10:30am CST

 

Good morning from Mississippi the birthplace of Elvis Presley and the blues, the American home of the International Ballet Competition, and one of the nation’s most important and ongoing battlegrounds in the fight for civil rights in the United States. I am truly appreciative of New England College for the invitation to participate in this event today and I thank you for indulging this political operative-turned professor for a few minutes.

My name is Nathan Shrader and I am the chair of the Department of Government and Politics and director of American Studies at Millsaps College here in Jackson, just a few minutes from our state capitol building. It is truly a historic moment in Mississippi politics as days ago, the new state flag was hoisted above the capitol for the first time, which won overwhelming approval by voters last November to replace the prior state flag that had been in place since the 1890s and featured the Confederate battle emblem.

I’m honored to be with you this morning, especially considering the magnitude of the events which have unfolded in American politics in a very short span of time and our need to best understand them in order to know what may come next.

As we begin thinking about the inauguration of the 46th president of the United States, the severity of the challenges facing the nation, and the political upheaval of the past five years, it may make sense to turn to one of America’s most celebrated literary voices.

Maya Angelou once wrote that “I have great respect for the past. If you don't know where you've come from, you don't know where you're going. I have respect for the past, but I'm a person of the moment. I'm here, and I do my best to be completely centered at the place I'm at, then I go forward to the next place.” I personally love this remark because is simultaneously optimistic and forward-looking, yet firmly rooted in reality. This strikes me as a much-needed combination for all of us who are engaged in American politics right now.

Perhaps given the past five years in American politics, a quote by the American philosopher Lawrence Peter “Yogi” Berra is appropriate as well: "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there."

Let me begin by saying that this is an extraordinary time to be studying, observing, and participating in American politics. Those of you who are current students, whether in high school or college, should know that every generation and every era witness their share of political transformations and turmoil, but I sense that what you have experienced in a very short time is basically political change and disorder on steroids.

Having grown up in politics in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I feel as if it is my obligation to tell you quite plainly that what you have witnessed in your formative years studying politics is not what those who came before you would describe as “normal” in any sense of the word. Perhaps this is the “new normal,” but it is still abnormal none the less.

I would like to briefly highlight five things to underscore this point and then have a conversation with you about what to anticipate in the First 100 Days of the Biden presidency.

First, in the past few weeks we have seen the manifestation of neo-fascism move from the shadows and fringes of American politics to openly storming the United States Capitol in an effort to brutalize America’s democratically elected political leaders, challenge the legitimacy of our nation’s institutions of government, and loudly assert that they are no longer to be marginalized by the norms of political society.

The entry for “neofascism” in Encyclopedia.com states that it is embodied by the following precepts:

1. ·       Extreme, militant nationalism
2. ·       A belief in authoritarian rather than democratic governance
3. ·       A total rejection of socialist or leftist philosophies and egalitarianism
4. ·       Appeals to those deprived of their once dominant societal status at the expense of emerging groups
5. ·       Xenophobia and hostility toward minority groups believed to have caused their social and economic decline

As I look back at my own experience on September 11, 2001 I am even more perturbed and disgusted by the events in our nation’s Capital on January 6, 2021. Over 19 years ago I was working as an intern on Capitol Hill in the office of the late US Senator Arlen Specter when al Qaeda terrorists directed two planes towards Washington. One landed in the side of the Pentagon while the other, which was aimed at the Capitol Building itself, was brought down by patriotic passengers over Shanksville, PA not far from where I grew up. Having been a witness to the terror attack on the Capitol by those terrorists 19 years ago, I never thought I would see the day when domestic terrorists actually managed to storm and hold the building while flying flags of an American president.  

Second, and somewhat linked to this, the past several weeks alone has reignited an important, yet controversial discussion about the basic tenants of “freedom of speech” and whether what is said on internet forums and social media platforms is protected despite these being non-governmental entities. Do platforms have the right to ban speech…. Do employers have the right to fire people for attending protests… Are we treating political speech differently for those on one end of the spectrum or the other? In short, are we allowed to do the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater by spreading dangerous and false information on the internet through privately run platforms?

This is certainly now a new conundrum for us to address. On December 16, 2016 Fox Sports published a story with the headline “PHILLIES FOOD VENDOR WHO SUPPORTS WHITE NATIONALISM IS FIRED,” and was later featured on an episode of the Michael Smerconish Show on Sirius/XM about all of the issues tangled up within this situation. In short, Citizens Bank Park food vendor Emily Youcis was fired after appearing at an event sponsored by a white nationalist group which, according to Fox Sports “drew headlines after some attendees evoked Adolf Hitler's Third Reich with cries of ''Heil Trump'' and use of the Nazi salute.”

Was Youcis within her rights as a citizen to free assembly and speech, or was her activity outside of the workplace sufficient for her termination? Expect more debates on topics such as this in the coming days.

Third, we are now in a place to evaluate exactly where our two-party system stands. Unlike some other scholars and pundits, I believe that the American two-party system is immensely strong and durable, and the likelihood of a third party or multi-party system developing here is even less likely than ever given the constraints place on the political process by the parties themselves to weaken competition internally using the levers of government at the national and state levels.

Essentially, we find ourselves with a striking absence of a fiscally conservative party in the United States at this time, a center-left Democratic Party that has upended the long-standing Republican hold over suburban America, and a Republican Party which seems to exist based on a somewhat tense relationship between establishment insiders within the Beltway, corporate elites who do not actually control a voting majority within the party, and a large, but shrinking segment of the white population that is guided by grievances based on race, culture, and identity more than any other interlocking political principles.

Fourth, living in the age of the Coronavirus pandemic, Americans and voters like all of us here today are frustrated with each other and the government’s inability to control the crisis. We are collectively exhausted by 10 months of economic and social disruption that has prevented us from living our lives, visiting our friends and relatives, and losing wages and opportunities because residual impacts of the virus. Additionally, Americans are watching an ill-planned and poorly prepared vaccine distribution process that has lacked a national strategy and is instead relying upon a state-by-state approach, something that is both archaic and unnecessary given our current situation.

In Mississippi alone, our Millsaps College/Chism Strategies State of the State Survey released two weeks ago found that just over 50% of Mississippians say they will either definitely or probably get the vaccine when the time comes for them to do so. Public health challenges like this await the new president, the new congress, and all of us who are active in the political process.

Fifth and finally, we have just seen an American presidential election that saw 67% of legally eligible voters cast ballots, the highest since 1900 when nearly 74% of eligible voters participated. Ironically, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in early December that the highest share of eligible American voters to ever participate in a presidential election was 1876—a bona fide stolen election in which Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote and trailed by one vote in the Electoral College, yet still “defeated” New Yorker’s Sam Tilden—when 83% of eligible voters cast ballots. My students in a new class called Controversies in American Politics will be reading Roy Morris’ account of the election starting next week in the book Fraud of the Century.

The question on the minds of many folks like me who specialize in applied politics—the combination of scholarship and hands-on practice—is whether the United States can sustain increased participation and engagement, or if this was a one-off election because of controversial nature of the incumbent, the social and political forces at play, and expansion of much needed tools such as vote-by-mail, drop-off ballot boxes, and no excuse absentee or early voting.

In summation, tomorrow at 12pm Joseph R. Biden will take the oath of office as the nation’s 46^th president in the face of historically high voter participation that may or may not endure, a raging pandemic that is now projected to leave half a million Americans dead in another month, a structurally secure yet ideologically unstable two-party system, a robust debate over freedom of expression and the responsibilities of corporate platform owners, and the overt rather than covert manifestation of neo-fascist activity in American politics.

Biden’s ascent to the presidency has been one that has lasted 34 years from the time he first announced his candidacy in 1987 to tomorrow when he places his hand on the Bible and swears the oath of office. Biden is a lifelong moderate Democrat who was elected successfully at a time when the increasingly loud voices on the right and left seemed to make such a situation improbable. Biden was able to govern for decades in the Senate and as Vice President as a centrist institutionalist, yet credibly run on the most liberal platform of a Democratic Party nominee since George McGovern in 1972.

This quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower—whose portrait hangs behind me—seems to best summarize Biden’s governing philosophy over the years: “Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.” Can this 78-year-old man who is proud of his career in public service united a fractured nation while keeping his own party together?

To say that President-elect Biden faces a gargantuan challenge is nothing short of an understatement. Here are a few poll numbers to help illustrate the size and scope of the challenge Biden faces beginning at 12pm tomorrow:

1. ·       According to Quinnipiac, Biden takes office with 31% of American voters (mostly all Republicans) saying that he was not legitimately elected despite clear evidence that he was and lack of any proof that he wasn’t.
2. ·       37% believe there was “widespread voter fraud” in the November election, which of course is inaccurate.
3. ·       A poll released two days ago by my alma mater, Suffolk University found that a vast majority of Americans, by a lopsided measure of 70% to 17% believe that “America's democracy is weaker, not stronger, than it was four years ago.”

So, what does all of this mean for Joe Biden in his First 100 Days?

As Churchill wrote, “A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.” The tradition of measuring his success begins in the First 100 Days. With that, I would like to conclude my remarks and open the floor for your comments, thoughts, and questions about President Biden’s First 100 Days.

Thank you.