March 4, 2006
The Pennsylvania Paradox
By G. Terry Madonna and Michael L. Young
During his
first run, a presidential candidate visits a certain state 23
times, more than any other state. Four years later as a reigning
president, he travels into the same state a record 44 times campaigning
for re-election. The same year, the same state holds the most
noticed US Senate primary in the country; it features a razor
thin race many believed would influence the US Supreme Court for
a generation.
A few years
earlier in 1992, the same state hosted another US Senate race
that defined gender politics in the US, and in 1991 the state
staged a Senate race that may have presaged an incumbent president’s
defeat.
Now in still
another political year, this state’s voters are in the bull’s
eye once again--about to experience the most watched national
battle for a U.S. Senate seat--as well as a gubernatorial race
featuring a national celebrity who is the state’s first
African American to win a major party nomination pitted against
one of the country’s most prominent politicians. Are we
describing California perhaps New York maybe or even Florida?
Actually none of these--welcome to Pennsylvania politics, circa
2006.
Whether this
rendition of contemporary state politics seems normal or abnormal
to you probably depends on when you came of political age: if
it was before 1991 or so, Pennsylvania’s flurry of high
profile campaigns and intense national attention probably seems
a little strange. But if politics started for you after 1991,
it all seems ordinary.
That is because
Pennsylvania is now and has been since the early 1990's in a period
where acute national interest is routinely focused on the state’s
politics and candidates. Why this is so and how long it might
last are provocative questions. Paradoxically, Pennsylvania’s
moment in the national spotlight comes during a long term decline
in the state’s importance due to broad economic and demographic
trends now powerfully underway. Why Pennsylvania is ground zero
in so many elections, despite long-term decline, is the Pennsylvania
paradox.
A modest
historical discursion is necessary. Modern Pennsylvania politics
can be dated from the Civil War period. Three eras predominate.
The first, from the Civil War itself to mid-twentieth century,
the state was largely taken for granted politically--not quite
ignored--but rarely critical in political wars and hence far from
the center stage of national events or interest. During this interval
of plunder and spoils, the state was the mirror image of the solid
south, except solid for the R’s, and consequently bypassed
in almost every way politically.
The second
era from the 1960’s to the 1990’s was Pennsylvania’s
bellwether era: electoral politics largely tracked national trends--a
solid two party state, competitive in most national elections,
and tending to vote with the country as a whole. In popular votes,
it went with the winner in every election, except for Hubert Humphrey
in 1968. In general during this period, Pennsylvania was interesting,
but rarely crucial.
During the
third and present era, one that began in the 1990’s, the
state changed dramatically. Pennsylvania regularly became ground
zero in national elections. In fact, we can date Pennsylvania’s
accession to national stage rather precisely, April 4, 1991, the
day one of the state’s most popular political figures, US
Senator John Heinz, perished in the mid-air collision that took
his life. Heinz’s tragic death set off a chain of events
and consequences still reverberating through PA politics today.
These include the thrilling 1991 Senate race between Harris Wofford
and Dick Thornburgh, the gripping 1992 Senate race between Arlen
Specter and Lynn Yeakel, and the rise to prominence of US Senator
Rick Santorum.
Since 2000,
the trend toward more and more national attention for Pennsylvania
has been accelerating. The 2000 contest between Gore and Bush
received unprecedented coverage; then four years later in the
2004 battle between Bush and Kerry, the Pennsylvania coverage
was once again intense. The same year Senator Arlen Specter had
perhaps his toughest race in his own party primary, and now again
in 2006 the state is the focal point of two of the most important
and reported races in the country.
Much of this
is well known to even casual observers of contemporary political
life; the great question is why has Pennsylvania increasingly
become center stage in national electoral politics and what forces
or factors impel Pennsylvania to become more and more important
at the very time the state is losing population and electoral
votes? What explains the Pennsylvania paradox?
It’s
a complicated question that yields no simple answers; however,
four factors loom prominently as explanations for Pennsylvania’s
time in the national limelight.
* COMPETITIVENESS--while
much of the country has become polarized into stable red or blue
states, Pennsylvania has remained a competitive two party state
in national elections as illustrated by the closeness of presidential
elections in the state. Competitive politics in a time in which
competition is declining nationally distinguishes Pennsylvania
from almost every other large state. Of the competitive states,
only Florida has more electoral votes making Pennsylvania the
second most coveted Electoral College prize.
* KEY NATIONAL
RACES--since 1991, the state has showcased several of the most
prominent national races, including the sensational Harris Wofford-Dick
Thornburgh race, used by political guru James Carville to introduce
the issues--heath care and the economy-- that he later used in
the 1992 presidential election to help elect Bill Clinton. Wofford
also was featured three years later in a contest with Rick Santorum,
a key election that helped usher in the Republican dominance of
Congress. Earlier in 1992, and growing out of the sensational
Clarence Thomas hearing that featured Specter’s tough questioning
of Anita Hill, the Specter versus Yeakel race came to symbolize
nationally the “Year of the Women” in American politics.
More recently in 2004, the Specter primary battle against Pat
Toomey was largely read as a fight for the soul of the Republican
Party. And currently both the 2006 governor’s race and the
2006 US senate race are receiving rapt national attention. From
these several contests, Pennsylvania has become accustomed to
being in the national spotlight; equally important, the nation
has become used to Pennsylvania being there.
* REPUBLICAN
DOMINANCE –Democrat governors bookend the era from 1991,
and Democrats have won seven of the last ten statewide elections,
but Republican hegemony in the state has been a central characteristic
of the period: the US Senators are Republican, the state legislature
is Republican, and two of the three Appellate Courts are Republican.
And Republicans used their control over the legislature to redraw
the congressional boundary lines in 2001 to increase their majority
in the delegation by four members. Until recently, Pennsylvania,
despite its Democrat tilt in presidential elections, has been
one of the most Republican states in the nation. This period of
Republican hegemony largely has coincided with national Republican
control of Congress and the White House, projecting state politicians
like Arlen Specter, Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum onto the national
stage in highly visible roles. Pennsylvania was increasingly noticed
because they were noticed.
* POLITICAL
LEADERSHIP— since 1991, the state has produced an unusual
number of nationally prominent high profile politicians. These
include former governors Bob Casey, Sr. and Dick Thornburgh, and
more recently Ridge, Santorum, Specter and Rendell--all leaders
involved in the debate over major national issues or who have
run in closely watched races, or who have been selected for national
leadership. Santorum is the number three Republican in the Senate
while Specter is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a
time of high profile judicial controversies. Rendell is a national
Democrat spokesman and former national Chairman and Ridge was
the first Secretary of Homeland Security. All of them are national
leaders, not because of mere longevity, but because of substantial
sustained leadership, honed in Pennsylvania and now exercised
nationally.
The toughest
question remains: how long will the trend last, how much longer
will the state be basking in the political klieg lights? No one
knows for sure, but there is little evidence that Pennsylvania
is becoming less competitive, or that the nation is becoming less
polarized. As long as those conditions continue to prevail, Pennsylvania
likely will continue its political prominence. There is abundant
poetic irony here. For decades during its ascendancy, Pennsylvania
was nicknamed the “keystone state” because of its
central location among the original states. Now no longer ascendant,
it plays that role once again as arguably the key state in American
electoral politics.
Dr.
G. Terry Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and
Marshall College and Dr. Michael Young is Managing Partner of
Michael Young Strategic Research.
