Dr. Joseph R. Marbach's blog

Now that  the dust has finally settled after the grueling campaign for governor, there are a number of lessons that we can draw from this election.

First and foremost, this was a "pocketbook" election. The No. 1 issue on the minds of voters was the state of the economy, followed closely by concern over skyrocketing property taxes. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of those polled indicated that they were concerned with the condition of the national economy.

Whether it was fair or not, Governor Corzine's fate was ultimately tied to the recession, which has placed a tremendous strain on state resources and has severely reduced state revenues. This combination has placed New Jersey in a critical fiscal condition.

I am often asked by my students, friends and even reporters why campaigns in New Jersey are so nasty and why candidates rely so heavily on negative ads.  The answer, quite simply, is that candidates rely on negative campaigning because it works.  If it didn't work, candidates would have abandoned the approach years ago.  In short, people are much more likely to vote against something or someone when they feel threatened.  And after all, that is the point of negative campaigning.

The key question then is why negative campaigns work.  The answer to this is again relatively simple.  Negative campaigns work because most voters in New Jersey are ill-informed and get most of their information about any statewide election from television advertisements.  Fewer and fewer individuals read newspapers, and talk radio, with the exception of 101.5 FM, focuses on national issues.

Whenever a politician is charged or convicted with violating the public trust, I am asked by my students, reporters and friends why this happens with such regularity in New Jersey.  What is it about New Jersey that fosters such a climate of corruption?

The best answer I can give is that the roots of this corruption are found in our political culture, which was shaped by the founding of New Jersey as a colony, and has been reinforced by the institutions and practices that have developed since. This notion was fully developed by my mentor, Daniel J. Elazar, PhD., who articulated a theory that the American political culture was as an amalgamation of three subcultures. These three subcultures were introduced in the original colonies by the various groups that settled there, and thus are geographically based.  In the Mid-Atlantic States, including New Jersey, Elazar describes the political subculture as the "individualistic subculture."

Based on the first Republican debate, which I had the opportunity to watch in the NJN studio and participate in a panel discussion afterwards, it was clear that both Steve Lonegan and Chris Christie were well-prepared and able to stay on message throughout the exchange.

The format of the debate was lively and the questions asked by Bob Ingle, Cynthia Burton, Michael Aron, and two viewers via e-mail touched on most of the major issues that have framed the electoral contest to date. I think the format can be improved by allowing candidates more time to fully articulate their positions.

For example, Steve Lonegan is introducing ideas, including a flat tax and revenue redistribution formula that would fundamentally change the tax structure of state. The one minute response, thirty second rebuttal format did not allow him to provide a full explanation of the benefits of such shift, nor was he able to provide detailed examples of where such a system is working.

Chris Christie, on the other hand, was asked about the monitoring contracts he awarded as U.S. Attorney. His answer only touched on the surface of his rationale for awarding these contracts. He was not asked about the Deferred Prosecution Arrangements that led to these contracts and will need more than 90 seconds to educate voters on the intricacies and benefits of such arrangements.

With the entrance of Chris Christie into the Republican gubernatorial primary, the GOP has greatly enhanced its chances of capturing the governor's mansion. While Christie certainly will be a strong candidate, the fact that he faces another prominent Republican in Steve Lonegan means that a significant amount of media attention will be focused on the Republican primary, while the Democratic candidate, in all likelihood the incumbent Governor Corzine, will be attending to state business. Unfortunately, in this economic climate attending to state business means that Governor Corzine will be cutting budgets rather than cutting ribbons.

Conventional wisdom generally holds that a any primary pitting the state's two most recognizable candidates against one another is a recipe for disaster, especially when facing a well-financed incumbent. However, I believe conventional wisdom is wrong in this case. In an off-year election cycle like New Jersey's, the media's attention will be focused on the gubernatorial primary, especially the "horse-race" elements, and will provide the candidates in the primary an unprecedented degree of media coverage.  The result will be a significant boost in their name recognition among voters. 

This was the situation that Democrats faced in 1997 when Jim McGreevey, Mike Murphy and Rob Andrews squared off against one another. Christie Whitman, the incumbent, waited in the wings and received little attention. (Governors performing their normal duties are usually not very newsworthy.) The Democratic race that year was the big news story, and it received the lion's share of media attention. As a result, the event winner of the primary, Jim McGreevey, nearly pulled off an upset against Whitman.

I am pleased to report the results from the first national poll conducted by Environmental Studies Program in the College of Arts and Sciences at Seton Hall University. The poll found that 89 percent of respondents said that the environment and energy issues impact the quality of their family’s life a lot, while 7 percent said that it impacted them a little and only 3 percent said that it had no impact on them at all. This poll also found that 70 percent of the respondents are following the presidential election and the candidates’ positions on the environment and energy very closely.

Respondents believed that economic strength and environmental protection are linked, with 41 percent of all respondents stating that stronger environmental protection is more likely to help the economy. About a quarter of respondents (27 percent) believe that stronger environmental protection is more likely to hurt the economy. 

For the past few weeks, I've watched with fascination as politician after politician have appeared on a beach or a boardwalk and declared their opposition to off-shore drilling.  It is a classic example of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon.  In New Jersey, opposing off-shore drilling has become a valance issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can agree.

The budget proposed by Gov. Jon Corzine has produced myriad negative reactions, featuring various interests seeking to limit the impact of the cuts he has identified. Lost in the minutia of how much money will be saved by eliminating various executive departments and agencies, or how small towns will fare under this proposal is a larger question about the role of government in society. This budget present the citizenry of the state a unique opportunity to re-examine the fundamental questions regarding what we expect from government and what we are willing to pay for those services.

For too many years, New Jerseyans have been enjoying the benefits of an ever-expanding state government without paying for the actual costs of this growth. Both political parties are at fault, relying on one-time gimmicks, such as borrowing against the tobacco settlement funds or bonding to pay for operating costs, or failing to adequately fund obligations such as the unemployment fund or employee pension.

In preparing for a presentation I gave at the New Jersey Political Science Association meeting last week, I spent some time reviewing the exit poll data compiled by the New York Times. In assessing whether or not moving the New Jersey presidential primary from June to February was worth the reported $ 10 million it would cost state and local governments, I looked at the turnout rate and specifically the number of new primary voters it produced.

According to the Times poll, 19 percent of the 1.1 million voters participating in the Democratic primary identified themselves as "Independent," in essence unaffiliated voters. Extrapolating form the numbers, this means that approximately 210,000 new Democrats decided to participate in the primary process. Not surprisingly, a plurality of these voters supported Barack Obama (49%), while Hillary Clinton drew 43 percent and seven percent went to John Edwards

In an op-ed piece I wrote for the Bergen Record on Sunday, January 13, 2008, I observed that Governor Corzine's financial restructuring plan was taking a page out of the state's history.  From 1830 until the 1860s, the state relied on a deal it struck with the Camden & Amboy rail line to fund most of the operations of state government.  The deal granted the C&A a monopoly on the highly profitable route between Philadelphia and New York.  In exchange for this grant, the railroad provided the state with stock in the company and guaranteed it an annual dividend that amounted to over ten percent of the state's operating budget.  In addition, the state taxed riders.  The total income from this deal provided the state with more than half its annual budget.

The costs were largely passed on to out-of-state riders, who because of the monopoly paid fares that were estimated to be four times higher than comparable rates charged by railroads in states that permitted competition.