|
|
|
Reviews
OREGON POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT: PROGRESSIVES VERSUS CONSERVATIVE POPULISTS
|
edited by Richard A. Clucas, Mark Henkels,and Brent S. Steel
|
| University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2005. Tables, notes, index. 355 pages. $55.00 cloth, $29.95 paper. |
| Readers in search of an insightful and balanced view of Oregon political life will find much to appreciate in this book, featuring contributions from highly knowledgeable and articulate scholars and seasoned observers of the state's politics. This book is one in a series of twenty-two well-edited and highly regarded books on American state politics commissioned by the Center for the Study of Federalism at Lafayette College. The Oregon contribution edited by Clucas, Henkels, and Steel is among the best of a very good series. |
1
|
|
What makes this book worthy of such praise? Perhaps among the most noteworthy features of this edited volume of eighteen chapters penned by fourteen different scholars is that it reads as though a single author organized and drafted the entire work. There is a strong theme uniting the chapters, and there is a clear illustration of how that central theme plays out in a state some well-informed commentators have provocatively labeled "schizophrenic." Whether the topic be the state legislature, the elected judiciary, the weak executive branch, the state's constellation of interest groups, the print and broadcast media, the electoral process, the powerful but embattled bureaucracy, local government, or major areas of public policy (fiscal, health, social, and education), the central theme is shown to arise from a careful reading of the state's history and a careful study of the evolution of that historical legacy into contemporary political life. The influence of initiative politics is shown to permeate Oregon's political life in ways few other states have been affected, and there is rich discussion about how the state is at once cutting edge and reactionary in its political life. Each author brings uncommon insight to his or her respective area of attention, and the artful combination of these insights by the editors make this book a strong addition to literature on U.S. state governments and their distinctive political cultures. |
2
|
|
What is this theme in question? As noted in the subtitle of the volume, the interplay of two powerful, historically conditioned undercurrents in the politics of the state — "progressive" and "conservative populist" in character — has been and continues to be a major force in the Oregon political setting. One or the other powerful undercurrents predominates for a certain time in each area of political life but, inevitably, the rival comes to the fore in due course. Those with only a passing familiarity with Oregon political life should be warned that the state's progressive heritage has been romanticized in social science literature and has given people the false impression that Oregon fully deserves a clearly progressive characterization. This collection of authors illustrates beyond question that a more proper view of the state's politics recognizes the constant interplay between and competition for influence by the forces of progressive and conservative populist thought. |
3
|
|
The key terms progressive and conservative populist are thusly defined by Clucas and Henkels: "Throughout this book, we use the term 'progressive' to identity the ideas, policies, individuals, and groups that ... promote the active use of government power to solve societal ills. They support the promotion of experts in government, the use of rational problem solving, and the adoption of innovative policy solutions.... We use the term 'conservative populist' to refer to the ideas, policies, individuals, and groups that want to reduce taxes and limit the role of government in most social and economic contexts, except where the government may serve to promote traditional values" (pp. 2–3). Once it is established that these two distinctive perspectives on political life historically have been and continue to be present in the political life of the state, the romanticized view is properly dispatched from readers' minds and the potential to understand the profoundly schizophrenic character of the state's history and current political life comes to the forefront. |
4
|
|
Readers come to appreciate that the same state that has a historical legacy of racism (in 1857, Oregonians ratified their state constitution and voted by a margin of 89 percent to 11 percent to exclude free blacks from the state), that walked a fine line between loyalty to the Union and showing active sympathy for the Confederacy during the Civil War, and that has generated homophobic and exclusionary local government ordinances and damaging "tax revolt" initiatives in more recent times is also capable of adopting some of the most progressive measures of public policy present in any of the American states. Oregon reformers were among the earliest champions of the initiative, referendum, and recall process, of the direct election of U.S. senators, and of women's suffrage. In more recent times, progressive forces in the state have succeeded in asserting public control over beaches and shorelines; instituting comprehensive statewide land-use planning to protect the environment and promote public health and safety; creating an innovative, effective, and much envied metropolitan regional government in the Portland area; introducing voting through the mail to expand public participation; providing for physician-assisted suicide for those wishing to end the pain and suffering often associated with incurable conditions; and experimenting with the provision of universal healthcare. |
5
|
|
Given these remarkable accomplishments on the part of the state's progressive forces, it is tempting to simplify our mental perceptions by placing Oregon in a group of progressive states, but a more correct vision of the current politics of the state was expressed at the end of the chapter on interest groups by Russ Dondero and Bill Lunch: "The fracturing of Oregon's political landscape over social, fiscal, and environmental issues indicates that Oregon's political fabric is torn. Bipartisanship is less the norm than is bickering across increasingly high ideological fences that separate rural Oregon from urban Oregon; the Portland metro area from the so-called other Oregon; the timber/agribusiness economy from the high-tech economy; and young Oregonians from an increasingly aging Oregon. We are divided ..." (p. 98). |
6
|
|
For readers more interested in a realistic, balanced assessment of Oregon government and politics than a romanticized tale of political life in Oregon, this is the book for you. The contributors to this fine book are to be commended. |
7
|
| Nicholas Lovrich
|
| Washington State University |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|