Arkansas’ political market share shift

The natural state of economic affairs in a market economy revolves around the interaction between supply and demand. When there is competition between suppliers over a share of the demand side, there usually ensues some ingenuity to market a specific brand so as to win over a significant share of the economic market.

The said competition is more concentrated when there is a duopoly made up of the two major competitors who vie only with each other and raise barriers to the entry of potential additional competitors. Besides, when there is a shift in the preference of buyers (demand side), successful suppliers quickly move to adapt to the changing economic environment so as to remain relevant.

No, you are not reading an article about a very simplified version of economics 101. However, you are about to read a metaphorical version of a political market place in general and the Arkansas political market place in particular.

POLITICAL MARKET PLACE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Like the economic market place, the political market place revolves mostly around the interaction between the supply side and the demand side. While the supply side is primarily made up of three key elements (political parties, issues, and candidates), the demand side is primarily made up of voters.

In a republican form of government in which the people elect representatives who then act on behalf of the people, the existence of political parties is a necessary condition for a proper organization and a proper functioning of a political system. Political parties help recruit, train, finance, nominate, and promote candidates to be standard bearers of the respective parties for a given elected position.

Political parties adopt an ideologically-based platform of positions on issues of concern to the voters, which then serves as a guiding principle to how candidates representing a given political party would govern if elected. This also has the added merit of helping most voters significantly reduce their information processing time on how to cast a ballot on an issue/candidate, as a candidate’s political affiliation more often signals to most voters what values the candidate is likely to represent. For example, a “REP” or a “DEM” mention in front of a candidate’s name on the ballot prompts voters to infer from a candidate’s political affiliation what worldview and values the candidate is likely to adopt.

The existence of political parties also makes it easier for the voters to hold a political party and its candidates accountable. Thus, despite the fact that over the past few decades candidates have progressively gained an ability to be somewhat independent of political parties through a separate fund raising effort and a separate campaign operation, political parties along with their platform of positions on issues and their respective candidates form a distinctive brand that has been seared in the mind of most voters for many decades. Furthermore, due to campaign finance laws and court decisions, independent expenditures of outside groups (527s, 501 c3s, 501 c4s, etc.) could now help or hurt the brand of political parties, issues, and candidates so as to encourage or discourage the voters’ support.

So, like the economic market place, the political market place is replete with marketing strategies designed to sell a specific political brand. But, unlike the economic market place in which competitors aim at making pecuniary profit, the political market place brings together competitors whose end goal is to gain, maintain, and expand power. How does this apply to the Arkansas political market place?

ARKANSAS’ CHANGING POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
Ever since the Reconstruction era, the Democrats had been the undisputed leader of the Arkansas political market place as the voters (demand side) bought into the democratic brand for almost all the constitutional offices and for the majority in both chambers of the Arkansas legislature. Of the 35 governors who were elected between 1874 and 2006 when Gov. Mike Beebe was first elected, only three were Republicans (Winthrop Rockefeller, Frank White, and Mike Huckabee). According to the Institute for Southern Studies, the Democrats had controlled the Arkansas state legislature between 1874 and 2012.

However, since 2010 the stock value of the Arkansas Democratic brand has been crumbling and that of the Arkansas Republican brand has been on the rise. So much so that the Republicans started to pick up some constitutional offices and to gain seats in the Arkansas legislature. The Republicans went from controlling no constitutional office before the 2010 midterm elections to controlling three (Lt. Gov., Secretary of State, and Commissioner of State Lands) and could have controlled even more had they fielded candidates for other down ballot constitutional offices.

According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Republicans went from being the minority party in the Arkansas State Legislature before 2010 to gaining 16 seats in the House of Representatives and seven seats in the Senate in the 2010 midterm elections, and gaining six additional seats in each of the two chambers in the 2012 general elections – which gave the Republicans control of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. In 2014, the Republicans expanded their lead in the Arkansas House of Representatives (+13) for a total of 64 seats, and in the Arkansas Senate (+3) for a total of 24 seats.

PROBABLE EXPLANATIONS FOR MARKET SHARE LOSS
With all other things being equal, the diminishing market share of the Democratic brand in Arkansas could be due to two factors: a reactive deficiency and a proactive deficiency.

The reactive deficiency revolves around the following:
• Given the fact that ever since the 1994 midterm elections when Newt Gingrich and the national Republicans set the trend of prominently nationalizing midterm elections;
• Given the fact that since 2010 the national Republicans have successfully turned President Obama and Obamacare into electoral boogeymen; and
• Given the fact that some Arkansas Democrats (mostly Blanche Lincoln, and Mark Pryor) had enabled those two ‘boogeymen’ that many Arkansas voters love to hate, why did the Arkansas Democrats not find a way to effectively react to that changing political environment?

For example, knowing that President Obama, the National Democratic brand, and Obamacare were already a huge drag on the Arkansas Democratic brand, why let Lincoln and Pryor be the face of the Arkansas Democratic Party at the top of the ballot in 2010 and in 2014 respectively?

Why go down in flames with these two individuals when neither of them was courageous enough to articulate in simple and coherent terms why they had supported Obama’s policies and voted for Obamacare, and why they thought that was good for Arkansas? Arkansas Democrats could have at least recruited the term limited popular Gov. Mike Beebe to run for Pryor’s seat and thus save at least one seat on the Arkansas Congressional delegation for the Democrats – just as the West Virginia Democrats did when in 2010 they recruited then popular Gov. Joe Manchin to run for and save the Democratic U.S. Senate seat held by the late Sen. Robert Byrd.

As for the proactive deficiency, it is mostly because that by virtue of being in power for as long as the Arkansas Democrats had been without a strong Republican competition, this had likely caused the Arkansas Democrats to get too comfortable in power. Because for many years they did not have a viable Republican competition that could have frequently stimulated their optimal performance, Arkansas Democrats were likely lulled into a false sense of security. There is no evidence that Arkansas Democrats had been grooming young, strong, and charismatic up-and-coming candidates, and there is no evidence that they were alert enough to weather the headwinds that have recently been making the Arkansas political market jittery.

As is the case in most domains, competition is for the most part good. The lack of strong competition did not serve Arkansas Democrats well, and it also would likely not serve Arkansas Republicans well.

ARKANSAS REPUBLICANS: NEW MARKET PLACE LEADERS
Now that the Republicans would totally control the state political apparatus in Arkansas via the control of all seven constitutional offices and the Arkansas General Assembly, they ought not to get too comfortable either and realize that their historic victory is mostly because of the declining market share of the Democratic brand in Arkansas.

And since there is a de facto duopoly in the Arkansas political market place, the voters had to go with the other major brand. Besides, after many decades out of power, the Republicans are likely to face some challenges in governing. They just have to be mindful of the fact that just like in life nothing is ever permanent in politics, and they must endeavor to perform to the best of their abilities so as to be constantly worthy of the voters’ trust.

As for the Arkansas Democrats, they must go back to the drawing board and objectively take stock of why they have been losing their political market share to the Republicans. Only after that could they design an effective strategy to re-establish their distinctive brand as Arkansas Democrats who are not necessarily similar to the national Democratic brand. The essence of politics is to gain, maintain, and expand power. The Arkansas Democrats ought to regroup to figure out how to (re)gain power. Until then, the Arkansas Republicans have just gained power and are likely to strive to maintain and expand that power.

Until the ‘invisible hand’ readjusts the competing market forces of the Arkansas political market, this could be the new Arkansas for the foreseeable future. This could be the new natural state of political affairs.