interviews
The Nationalization of U.S. Elections
by Dan Hopkins
December 31, 2020
This interview with Dan Hopkins, Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
What were the original assumptions in the Constitution about state-level loyalty versus national government loyalty?
It's a good question. The Constitution is now far enough back in our collective memories that I think it's really valuable to start by having some sense of what the U.S. was like at the time. There were some scholars who argued that the Constitution is well understood as a peace treaty between sovereign states about how they were going to govern their affairs.
In 1776 and even in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, the U.S. was a collection of 13 quite different colonies. It took the Georgia delegation six weeks to travel to Philadelphia in order to participate in the Constitutional Convention. Different colonies had very different economies and different religious heritages. This was a quite diverse country and, thus, the Constitution was designed to protect substantial levels of state-level autonomy. I think it is really important to recognize that at the time, many of the people thought of themselves as Americans, but also to a certain extent, as New Yorkers or Virginians or Pennsylvanians.
When do you start to see a shift towards politics in the U.S. becoming more nationalized?
To some degree, it's an ongoing process that has unfolded in fits and starts over our 200-plus year history. I do think that the Civil War is a critical turning point. In the run-up to the Civil War, you see many more implications of state-level identities. I'm a Georgian, I'm a Virginian. And obviously, the Civil War pitted state against state.
It's generally been the case that the Republican party has been more likely to invoke federalism. Of course, the exemplary issue is the issue of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Even in more recent times, the Republican party has advocated for there being less of a role in the federal government asserting itself to protect the rights of African-Americans, especially, but not only in the South. I think it's fair to say that if you've heard a state rights argument in the last 50 years, it's more likely to be coming from the Republican party.
There's also an element in which as power shifts, we see changes. When the Republicans control the federal office, sometimes it's Democrats who say, "Hey, it's important to let California write its own laws with respect to clean energy or car emissions standards." At the same time, the extent to which we see Republican states moving to block sanctuary cities, for instance, is surprising.
If you're a principled federalist, then presumably cities shouldn't be punished for diverging.
In general, I see very few principled federalists in American politics. I think that all too often in contemporary American politics, federalism is just the clothing we use to dress up certain arguments instead of being a principled approach to a range of policy problems.
What factors contribute to a nationalized political landscape?
I actually think there's a relationship between the transformation of campaign finance, the transformation of voting, and the transformation of what's getting covered in our newspapers. There's a unifying element to all of this.
Let's look at campaign finance first. In many of the most competitive 2020 Senate races, large majorities of money came from out-of-state donations. What does that do to the candidates, and how does that affect the way constituents perceive elections?
I think that the nationalization of the campaign finance structure is an example of our nationalized set of divisions. What we're trying to do is refract these highly nationalized divisions through our federalist system. And the result often distorts representation in critical ways. One of the key facts about campaign finance has been that as late as 1992, two-thirds of all donations to federal candidates, to members of Congress, were coming from within the state that they represent. 20 years later in 2012, only one-third of all dollars were coming from the states that people represented.
The danger is that the representatives and senators increasingly have one constituency where they get their votes, but a separate constituency from where they get their money.
That is not how our system was designed to work. It was not designed for members of Congress to spend four hours a day raising money from people who are not their constituents.
And simultaneously, there has been a collapse of local media. I wonder how the decline of local news plays into this landscape?
When the internet first became a sizable presence, there was a hope that it might actually lead to a proliferation of local news. With the internet there are very, very low production costs, so, theoretically, I could put up a newsletter about my neighborhood. But in fact, as you said, the rise of the internet and the rise of cable television led to this dramatic concentration of our attention on a very, very small number of nationalized news sources. Partly that's because the news media would target us based on where we lived. The Philadelphia Inquirer targeted a set of people who wanted to know about life in and around Philadelphia.
But more recently we instead see that the business model for many media companies is to compete based on who voters are and who readers are and who consumers are, rather than where they live.
Rather than providing me with information specific to Philadelphia, they will identify me as someone who likes the National Football League or cares about politics.
That has led to the fragmentation of our media environment. One of the real losers in this has been people's attention to state and local politics. State and local politics have never been on the top of people's priority lists. It used to be that if I were reading the Philadelphia Inquirer, as a by-product of learning what the Eagle's score was, I also learn a little bit about who my mayor was or who my governor was. And nowadays, since I can go right to ESPN or I can go right to Fox News, I can skip over all that state and local information.
In a world where state and local politicians want to be well-known, they're much more likely to attach themselves to a lightning rod federal issue than they are to actually dive into the challenging, complex issues that face their local community.
Which really allows issues to be manipulated. When we focused on immigration, something I found interesting was how much immigration was used as a campaign tool in Ohio or Maine. It’s easy to make a border terrifying when you don’t live near one. Do you feel like campaigning has changed based on the ability to take issues that don't have anything to do with your constituents, but are made to look like they have everything to do with constituents?
Yeah, absolutely. One of the real challenges with a nationalized political environment is that it encourages attention to issues that are evocative and emotionally charged and often have to do with specific groups of people, but ultimately do not have clear policy effects. I think one prominent example of this is not long after President Trump was elected he attacked football players who refused to stand for the National Anthem. I think it's a very instructive case because he wasn't proposing any policy. This was purely about symbols.
I worry that in the nationalized political environment, it's very hard to put together a political coalition that speaks to auto workers and nurses in the suburbs of Detroit, and retirees in Maricopa County. This is a very diverse country. One of the easier ways to knit together a political coalition is to reach for these divisive, identity-oriented issues, even if that's not actually what's going to motivate the policies that you're proposing.
I do think that there's been a real connection between the way in which our politics has nationalized and the way in which our politics has become more identity oriented.
It's these kinds of identity charged issues that can have an intuitive meaning to people in places from Montana to North Carolina.
Has your work clarified your opinion about how national politics should work? What do you advocate for moving forward in terms of policy and campaigning?
I certainly think that voters do better when they have the information that they need, and I think that we are missing an opportunity to really use our federalist system, because there are so many different kinds of issues that face the different communities in our country.
If we are trying to force all of those issues onto a single divide between Democrats and Republicans, we're going to miss a lot of critical issues.
I think some of the disaffection with contemporary politics stems from the fact that many of us deal with problems in our day-to-day lives that are not represented by the Republican-Democrat divide.
I do want to be wary of nostalgia — or suggesting that some earlier period of history was markedly better. Yes. I worry a lot that today's voters just don't know much about state and local politics, but state and local politics wasn't always vibrant and democratic in previous generations, right? As a social scientist, I think part of my job is to lay out trends. I do think that nationalization is something that we should forecast as being a major part of our politics moving forward.
I also think that there are some policy changes on the edges that I would advocate for that I think would help reinforce the connections between places and voters, and to make better use of our current federalist system. For instance, I think campaign finance matching, so that every dollar you get locally is amplified, is a great idea. I think that could encourage politicians to lay down roots in the specific communities they represent and to spend less time trying to raise money from Manhattan or Dallas.
I think we should also do everything in our regulatory capacity to help promote, protect, and foster high-quality, non-partisan coverage of states and localities.
As a country that is hemorrhaging reporters who cover states and localities I do think that given how many important decisions are made at the state and local level, as a society, we have a real stake in the quality of local news media. There are fewer statehouse reporters, there are fewer city hall reporters, and there are fewer people who are tracking state and local politics to hold our politicians accountable. I think that has been underappreciated, and one of the real dangers in contemporary American democracy.
interviews
Impact Investment For The Circular Economy
by Rob Kaplan
January 31, 2019
Rob Kaplan is Founder and CEO of Circulate Capital, an impact-focused investment management firm dedicated to financing innovation, companies, and infrastructure that prevent the flow of plastic waste into the world's ocean while advancing the circular economy.
How do you define a circular economy?
I think a circular economy is one where commodities and resources are managed in perpetuity. So that there is no waste, but instead it's a resource for future innovation and product manufacturing.
In transitioning from a linear system to a circular one – who becomes responsible for the end of life? Especially in a time where goods are globally dispersed.
Well, I think the answer is that everybody's responsible. There's no single entity that is responsible for how it's managed at the end of its life, in my opinion. That's why this is a systems challenge that requires a systems solution.
Part of the challenge you're noting is the aspiration of a circular economy with the reality of where waste exists today. Because, circular economy in many ways is an aspirational concept. Especially within consumable products. It doesn't really exist. As we look to invest in companies that can prevent plastic pollution and instead drive towards more circular opportunities, it is a matter of degree. It's not, we'll get there tomorrow in that perfect ideal. It's more about, we've got a lot of waste that's not being managed appropriately. How do we improve that in a way that can create value for those communities? And also prevent the pollution at the same time.
What do some of those solutions look like in practice for you and the companies you work with?
We've been looking at how to invest in South and Southeast Asia for the last couple years. I'd say most of the opportunity that’s "shovel ready" today is in the waste and recycling sector. They are usually startup recycling companies that are generally the first line of formality. Where they're buying materials from waste pickers as well as municipalities in some cases. And then adding some kind of value to it. We also see a number of recycling facilities. They're a little bit further downstream from the collection aggregation. We have started to see a little bit of reusable and returnable systems, but they're in a very early stage at this time.
When you work with a large multi-national company, such as PepsiCo or Coca-Cola, what does their commitment to this process look like?
They have two different levels of commitment. The first is they are committing to improve their own operations and supply chains. Almost all of our investors have direct commitments about what they're doing to increase the amount of recycled materials they use in packaging and design for recyclability. Then, they are also committing capital to our strategy to allow us to invest in companies that can increase the amount of recycled material available for their use and the use of others.
They are also providing expertise and resources, and network. They are providing essential off-take and the ability to buy the material after it's collected and sorted. That's a big part of the challenge. The market that's available to buy this material. Needing that kind of surety of off-take.
We’ve discussed circular economies from a variety of perspectives and backgrounds. Science, academia, advocacy. You approach it as a business. Why is your work a necessary part of the puzzle?
The particular slice of the problem we are looking at is plastic pollution in Southeast Asia. We quickly realized it was going to take many billions of dollars of capital to build the infrastructure required to really stop the flow of plastic leaking into the environment and the ocean. We started to look at where would that capital come from? And we realized that it's not going to come from necessarily consumers or companies, but really, institutional investors that are financing the future of infrastructure in Asia. The only way to get those folks involved in this space is to show them that it's an investable marketplace. That there is a track record. That there is a pipeline of opportunity. And that you can make money doing this. We want to demonstrate that investing in waste recycling is as boring as investing in roads and bridges, for which there is a lot of capital allocated.
Our approach to this was “How do you turn this from a waste stream and a cost center into a profit center as a way to unlock that capital?”
When you say infrastructure, are you talking landfills, incinerators? What is that infrastructure?
Our focus is certainly on the recycling and reuse side. I think there is a reality that they need to have improved landfills in Southeast Asia too. But we're not particularly able or interested in financing landfills and incinerators are out of our scope.
Has the China recycling ban affected your day to day?
Oh yeah. I mean National Sword basically turned the entire recycling industry upside down globally. In the markets that we're particularly focused on, they were exporting waste to China too. They hadn't invested in their own domestic processing. That has caused big problems for them and has created great opportunities for investors, who are trying to build those companies within those countries, under those infrastructure projects.
I think most of the countries we're working in in Southeast Asia have also started to follow China's lead and stop accepting imported waste. The US and Europe are not contributing as much to ocean plastic these days as we used to. Because the exporting markets have dried up.
I think there's probably a shifting in the future where more of that will go to Africa, right? Because they haven't started those bans. But most of Southeast Asia has already either halted imports or is talking about halting imports.
Does all of this help move the agenda of circular economies further?
Absolutely. It was so cheap. No one had any incentive to invest in domestic circular economy opportunities because if you were in Los Angeles it was cheaper to ship a container of waste to China than it was to Chicago.
That's crazy.
One important point that I've been trying to communicate lately is that there is no silver bullet for these solutions. It's incredibly complex. People really look for elegant, simplified solutions. But a circular economy is complex. We're not going to be able to reduce our way out of this problem just like we're not going to be able to recycle our way out of this problem. You need both and many more solutions. I worry about absolutists that are trying to push agendas rather than really trying to drive environmental progress.
Our approach is very much, how do we deploy capital as much and as quickly as possible to stop this pollution and make triple bottom line in the process of doing it? Rather than, you know, any political perspective or point of view, it's really just the view of the investor that we're looking to bring to the conversation.
All or nothing doesn’t work here.
Yeah. It's really complex. How can anyone say that there's a single solution to something? If it were that easy, we would have figured it out already. And I think we're also starting to see, because of the topic getting so hot and everyone wanting a piece of it, they're all saying, “Well, what's my contribution?"
Right.
My contribution is activism. My contribution is lobbying or my contribution is X, Y, and Z. And so they're all sort of piling on without a really clear theory of change about where they think they're trying to drive the progress.
Has the re-upping of investment from petrochemical companies into the production of plastic affected your work?
Yeah. One of the interesting things about plastics and circular economies is you actually want that feed stock, right? If you start removing feed stock opportunities, like PET plastic, which is what most beverage bottles are made of, for example, that's really problematic from a circular economy and recycling perspective because PET is the most recyclable plastic that we have today. You'd want to see more of that recyclable material out there. Right now it's cheaper to make plastic out of petroleum or natural gas in the US. It could be cheap to make it out of old plastics. That's where I think the big unlock towards the circular economy comes in. How do you tap into those market forces of building massive chemical facilities and use that as your off take for recyclables? That's the opportunity to change the game and that's your supply and your demand.
Are you optimistic that that will start happening?
I think the petrochemical industry is starting to show that they're really interested in that idea. I think it's really complex and hard to do. There's a lot of barriers. But it's not a technology barrier necessarily.
Is it a political barrier?
It's not so much a political barrier, I think but... Why do you think it's a political barrier?
Because of the political and financial incentive to produce and frack natural gas. How do you switch where incentive lies?
Yeah. I think you're right there. Policy is a huge part of that. Especially in the US where natural gas is so cheap thanks to policy incentives and new technology. It's not so much the same thing in some of these emerging markets we're working in, which is where energy is very expensive and most of that additional capacity is coming online.