Political science is a discipline that sticks its toes in many different pools. We're a little bit country. We're a little bit rock 'n' roll. We're a little bit psychology, a little bit sociology, a little bit history, etc.
We're also a little bit economics. Specifically, many political scientists have undergone a good bit of training in what is known as "rational choice theory." The essential idea behind the theory is that human activities - even activities on a grand scale - can be understood as the product of the interactions of egoistic, goal-oriented "utility maximizers" in a given social setting. In other words - large scale results can be understood as the product of people pursuing interests and goals via purposive activity in the context of some kind of social setting.
So - having gone through more than a bit of this training myself, I interpreted the basic data point of the recent Washington Times story about Republican senators' failure to contribute money in a way quite different from the Times itself. The Times first reports the fact that top Republican senators with large war chests have failed to give money to the NRSC, and then it interprets this as stinginess. The Times writes:
The stinginess alarms some of the Republican Party's top campaign strategists, especially because it is in such stark contrast to the millions of dollars that Democrats have transferred to their candidates in need.
(snip)
"Time is running out," one senior Republican aide said. "People will not want to look back and wonder what more could have been done. That would be a real shame."
"Stinginess" has two basic meanings - one is a moral meaning and one is not. The Times implies the moral meaning - which, I think, has only a very small role in politics. Republican senators are not being generous. They see that their brethren are in trouble, and they are refusing to help them. They are thinking only of themselves and their own goals.
My question: just how often do we take generosity or selflessness to be key concepts in politics? Politics is not like the ministry, after all! This kind of stinginess is indeed the cornerstone of rational choice analysis of politics - actors are egoistic rational utility maximizers, i.e. they do that which personally benefits them most. Sure - this theory does not capture everything about politics, but it sure does capture a lot.
The other definition of "stingy" is much more interesting. It basically boils down to parsimony, i.e. the act of maximizing goals while minimizing costs in the situation in which you find yourself. Sometimes, depending upon the situation, you end up with a socially inefficient outcome, even though you have acted rationally. Situations like these, because they are obviously inefficient, often induce outside observers to charge the actors with moral mistakes, when in fact the problem was just the nature of the interaction.
I think that is what we have here.
It seems to me that this is one of those scenarios, which are broadly defined as collective action problems. They are most frequently modeled by what is known as the "prisoners' dilemma."
In its most basic format, the prisoners' dilemma consists of two people trying to coordinate their activities to provide a good that (a) both can enjoy but that (b) is too expensive for either to provide all alone. Every person has a choice to contribute or not to contribute. If both parties contribute, the group benefit will be greatest. If neither party contributes, the group benefit will be zero. However, if person A contributes and person B does not, person A does worse than if nobody contributes and B does better than if both parties contribute. And vice-versa. The reason is that the whole cost of the good is actually greater than your individual benefit from it. So, for the good to be provided, both sides have to chip in. However, you are best off having the other person provide the good and worst off providing it all by yourself. Accordingly, the equilibrium - i.e. the expected result - in the interaction is that nobody contributes and the good is not provided.
Government typically solves problems like this. For instance, provisions of roads and national defense are instances of solved collective action problems. The government solves the problem by coercion: if you fail to pay your taxes, you will (presumably) be punished. This is also why PBS gives you a tote bag for supporting Sesame Street.
Depending upon the good, the failure to provide it is very often explained in moral terms. For instance, the failure of the West to solve world hunger is often understood as a moral failing. However, the solution to hunger requires the coordination of multiple nations. No nation can feasibly solve it by itself. All parties must coordinate - and so the prisoners' dilemma rears its ugly head - even as third parties accuse the West of moral failings.
The Washington Times slips into this type of moral language in the article. They understand the GOP caucus's failure to fund the NRSC as "stinginess" or lack of generosity. But I think this misses the point. I think what is going on with the GOP Senate caucus is a prisoners' dilemma, and therefore moral language is not really appropriate.
Everybody would be best off if the NRSC had plenty of resources. The benefit to all Republican senators would be a minimization of the chance that the GOP loses the Senate. However - every individual would be best off if all the others provided for this and he/she could "free ride" without paying any costs. Similarly - they would be worst off if all the others "free rided" and he/she supplied all of the necessary money (which would inevitably be illegal, as no senator has enough to fully fund the NRSC). Accordingly, the equilibrium result is precisely what we see - an under-funded NRSC and senators with fat bank accounts. It is a socially inefficient, yet individually rational, outcome.
Why, then, does the DSCC not seem to be suffering from the same problem? There are many possible reasons - but my feeling is that it boils down to a clever chap named Charles Schumer. The outcome of the above interaction is predicated upon (a) the fact that everybody involved has correctly assessed that this is the actual state of play and (b) the absence of side benefits (e.g. the tote bag that PBS gives you for contributing) or punishments (e.g. the big-time trouble in which Blade now finds himself). My sense is that Schumer is very adept at both (a) and (b). He has probably done a good job making sure that people do not recognize that this is a prisoners' dilemma and/or ensured that the "stingy" will be heartily rebuked if the Democrats win a majority.
So, maybe, the fact that Elizabeth Dole has been a relatively poor NRSC chairwoman is again creating problems for the Republicans. Whereas Schumer is quite adept at "herding cats," Dole is not. Accordingly, she has been unable to effectively alter Republican senators' perception of the interaction or their assessment of the costs and benefits of contributing.
Also - the Democratic side features two people running for President - Kerry and Clinton. Both of them have interests independent of the majority to contribute. It is in their interests to seem like team players - and so the act of contribution carries a benefit. I would thus note with interest that Mitch McConnell - who intends to run for Majority Leader - is the most "generous" of Republican senators. He, like Kerry and Clinton, derive a personal benefit from the mere act of giving. And so, according to the Times, has given more than any Republican senator.
Second, Roskam said he sees that voters' opinions have changed since the immigration rallies earlier in the year where large numbers of Mexican flags were seen flying alongside, and in some cases above, U.S. flags. He also pointed out that voters in his district got a replay of that scene just a few weeks ago when a pro-amnesty immigration group marched right across the length of the entire sixth district on its way from Chicago to Batavia to protest outside of Speaker Hastert's office.