In 2010 the Supreme Court's decision about a case, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission overturned an earlier decision they made in 2003. I've mentioned this before in my mammoth post a while ago about Supreme Court decisions. A good overview of the case can be found on this page of Wikipedia.
In essence, the decision confirmed that a law which restricted organisations from spending money during an election (the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002) was unconstitutional, and the result is that any organisation can spend money on advertising trying to influence the outcome of an election. In the jargon, these are called PACs (political action committees)
Banks spending money to support Republican candidates. Anti-abortion campaigners advertising in favour or against a candidate based on their beliefs. Etc.
I mention this, because a comedian who has a late-night chat-show has founded his own PAC, "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow", and has tried to influence the outcome of the recent Republican straw poll vote in Iowa. Although the name of the PAC is silly, Colbert is trying to make a point about the flaws in the rules on campaign finance, and the ability of pressure groups and others to influence the democratic process. More information can be found here in a profile in the NY Times.
The ads are very silly. Decide for yourself:
Here or this video which has been embedded:
Wednesday 24 August 2011
A conservative America and the Tea Party wing of Republicanism
Anyone pondering the nature of America's conservatism should turn to this article in the New York Times. It discusses what the majority of Americans think and how the Tea Party movement are affecting the Republican party and politics in general. Key quote:
[The] inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas... Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.
On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans.
Great stuff.
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Smartphone aps
Anyone serious about G&P at either AS or A2 should ensure that they keep up-to-date with key developments in the world of politics. Smartphones are all the rage (I don't have one), and there are plenty of News apps out there; this article from Tutor2U discusses the CNN app, and this page lists a whole load of them. Anyone more versed in smartphone apps (i.e. almost anyone) will probably be waaaay ahead of me here, and also know where to go to get advice about these apps.
Ultimately without a good handle on recent and current events in politics for either the UK or the USA, candidates are likely to get no higher than a C-grade.
Ultimately without a good handle on recent and current events in politics for either the UK or the USA, candidates are likely to get no higher than a C-grade.
Ed Miliband and interview technique
Back in June when there was a strike by teachers about changes to their pension, Ed Miliband was quoted as being very statesman-like - "strikes are wrong when negotiations are going on".
The full interview is worth watching in full, and the accompanying article in the Guardian is worth reading too, as is the complaint by the journalist asking the questions.
Essentially the answer Miliband gives is scripted and he doesn't depart from his pre-prepared statement. Nothing wrong with that, except that he answers in the same way 6 times in a 2 1/2 minute interview.
Entertaining stuff:
The full interview is worth watching in full, and the accompanying article in the Guardian is worth reading too, as is the complaint by the journalist asking the questions.
Essentially the answer Miliband gives is scripted and he doesn't depart from his pre-prepared statement. Nothing wrong with that, except that he answers in the same way 6 times in a 2 1/2 minute interview.
Entertaining stuff:
Monday 22 August 2011
War in Libya - illegal?
The War Powers Act of 1973 makes it illegal for a President to go to war without authorisation from Congress. Presidents Regan, GHW Bush, Clinton and Obama have all ignored it.
Again, this does raise pertinent questions about the power of the President, given that foreign affairs is one of the key policy areas given to them by the constitution.
Despite the (at time of writing) on-going events in Libya looking like the "end-game", the fact is that President Obama has used the US military with other members of NATO to bomb a sovereign country. Back in June, the House rejected authorisation of US involvement in the war This post on Salon.comdiscusses the issues in greater depth.
There is obviously the argument that Congress cannot pass laws which contradict the Constitution (especially laws which restrict the power of the President as described in the constitution), and that it is possible to use the armed forces without calling an event a "war". Both of which arguments are useful counters to the above in an essay about Presidential power.
Further analysis here in the Democracy in America blog
Again, this does raise pertinent questions about the power of the President, given that foreign affairs is one of the key policy areas given to them by the constitution.
Despite the (at time of writing) on-going events in Libya looking like the "end-game", the fact is that President Obama has used the US military with other members of NATO to bomb a sovereign country. Back in June, the House rejected authorisation of US involvement in the war This post on Salon.comdiscusses the issues in greater depth.
There is obviously the argument that Congress cannot pass laws which contradict the Constitution (especially laws which restrict the power of the President as described in the constitution), and that it is possible to use the armed forces without calling an event a "war". Both of which arguments are useful counters to the above in an essay about Presidential power.
Further analysis here in the Democracy in America blog
Friday 19 August 2011
2nd Amendment
A quick note about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution; this article in the Washington Post discusses the implications of the Supreme Court decision DC v Heller (the first time the Supreme Court had decided on guns - it said that US citizens could have a gun) but then says that the gun lobby are not having it all their own way. The right to a gun is not all-encompassing; Lower courts are not giving the gun lobby carte-blanche to have guns wherever it likes.
Weak Obama vs Strong Bush?
The power of the Presidency is a topic likely to rear its head in the A2 exam. With that in mind, there is an argument of sorts going on in the Bloggosphere about why Obama is a weak President and why Bush was a strong president.
This posting discusses the limits on the Presidency's power to affect domestic politics, while this one is the reaction and discusses why Obama is a weak President and why Bush was a strong president. The short TL:DR version is that Obama seeks compromise and Bush didn't (it also helped I suppose that President Bush saw domestic policy as part of his "War on Terror"). This post on CBS news discusses how the debt-ceiling negotiations showed Obama at his weakest having caved into most of the Republican's demands. More technical stuff about the deal here from the Washington Post if you're interested.
A news item from the Washington Post about the terms of the deal can be found here.
Plenty of sub-links to follow and info to glean from the links above.
One of them is the article here from the Huffington Post about Obama's presidency and his tactics in office. If you haven't time to read the whole thing, miss out the list of individuals in the middle.
Essentially there are those who supported candidate Obama and are disappointed by his in ability to create change (the US system opposes change). There are those on the right who hate the idea of a Democratic president anyway.
Conversely, this post here at Salon.com says that Obama is playing his hand very well and that he really wasn't a progressive liberal that people thought he was in 2008. Andrew Sullivan here discusses the possibility that President Obama is luring the Republicans into the trap of getting a right-wing "Tea Party" candidate who moderates would dislike rather than a more centrist GOP candidate to run against him in 2012.
What do you think? Is Obama weak or merely not as willing as Bush to impose his wishes in a system which makes in hard to create change?
This posting discusses the limits on the Presidency's power to affect domestic politics, while this one is the reaction and discusses why Obama is a weak President and why Bush was a strong president. The short TL:DR version is that Obama seeks compromise and Bush didn't (it also helped I suppose that President Bush saw domestic policy as part of his "War on Terror"). This post on CBS news discusses how the debt-ceiling negotiations showed Obama at his weakest having caved into most of the Republican's demands. More technical stuff about the deal here from the Washington Post if you're interested.
A news item from the Washington Post about the terms of the deal can be found here.
Plenty of sub-links to follow and info to glean from the links above.
One of them is the article here from the Huffington Post about Obama's presidency and his tactics in office. If you haven't time to read the whole thing, miss out the list of individuals in the middle.
Essentially there are those who supported candidate Obama and are disappointed by his in ability to create change (the US system opposes change). There are those on the right who hate the idea of a Democratic president anyway.
Conversely, this post here at Salon.com says that Obama is playing his hand very well and that he really wasn't a progressive liberal that people thought he was in 2008. Andrew Sullivan here discusses the possibility that President Obama is luring the Republicans into the trap of getting a right-wing "Tea Party" candidate who moderates would dislike rather than a more centrist GOP candidate to run against him in 2012.
What do you think? Is Obama weak or merely not as willing as Bush to impose his wishes in a system which makes in hard to create change?
Monday 15 August 2011
Obamacare the next chapter
The Republican candidates are currently fighting it out to see who will be their party's candidate for President. Their messages are dominated by the refusal of all candidates to even consider tax increases, which is a key platform of the Tea Party movement.
You can get a flavour of the reaction of the conservatives here against the more democratic-supporting media here.
They really do hate eachother.
Significantly for President Obama and his supporters, a senior part of the US judicial system, the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, has ruled that part of the "Obamacare" health-reforms voted for by Congress in 2010 (and a key policy platform of the President) was unconsitutional (see this article in the Telegraph). The decision will be appealed by the President's lawyers and doubtless they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court in time for it to be a battleground in the 2012 election.
The Republicans hate the health-care reform and one of their ideas is to persuade the Judiciary that Congress (and the President) have no business intruding into what is policy that should be decided by the individual states (i.e. Federal Government rights vs States' rights).
Its a great example of a current political battle over the right of the Federal Government to impose a policy in an area which affects the whole country and which some see an intruding into areas which should be decided by the individual states.
You can get a flavour of the reaction of the conservatives here against the more democratic-supporting media here.
They really do hate eachother.
Significantly for President Obama and his supporters, a senior part of the US judicial system, the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, has ruled that part of the "Obamacare" health-reforms voted for by Congress in 2010 (and a key policy platform of the President) was unconsitutional (see this article in the Telegraph). The decision will be appealed by the President's lawyers and doubtless they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court in time for it to be a battleground in the 2012 election.
The Republicans hate the health-care reform and one of their ideas is to persuade the Judiciary that Congress (and the President) have no business intruding into what is policy that should be decided by the individual states (i.e. Federal Government rights vs States' rights).
Its a great example of a current political battle over the right of the Federal Government to impose a policy in an area which affects the whole country and which some see an intruding into areas which should be decided by the individual states.
Friday 12 August 2011
The failure of President and Congress
Very interesting articles here from the Economist about the failure of President Obama to lead and to be a strong president in the face of a rabid Republican party who are out to get him, and here about the failure of Congress to be able to come to some bi-partisan decision on matters of urgent national issues (eg the debt celing).
In addition, according to this article in the NY Times, an overwhelming majority (82%) of Americans disapprove of the job that Congress is doing.
In addition, according to this article in the NY Times, an overwhelming majority (82%) of Americans disapprove of the job that Congress is doing.
Sunday 7 August 2011
Gay Marriage
A news item from June highlighted how some of the States are passing into law acts which allow same-sex couples to marry, without the federal government stepping in.
While more and more Americans approve of the idea, it remains a politically sensitive area. Plenty of information on this
page of Wikipedia.
The graph comes from this blog post on the NY Times.
This posting from the Supreme Court blog (not written by the justices I may add) discusses the cases working their way up the judicial system (Perry v. Schwarzenegger & Windsor v. US) and some of the core implications which they raise:
States power, marriage, and religious freedom (as enshrined in the 1st Amendment) to name but 3.
Perhaps most importantly for A2 G&P students is that the piece predicts that the Supreme Court will have to look at the issue because of the important constitutional issues it raises.
While more and more Americans approve of the idea, it remains a politically sensitive area. Plenty of information on this
page of Wikipedia.
The graph comes from this blog post on the NY Times.
This posting from the Supreme Court blog (not written by the justices I may add) discusses the cases working their way up the judicial system (Perry v. Schwarzenegger & Windsor v. US) and some of the core implications which they raise:
States power, marriage, and religious freedom (as enshrined in the 1st Amendment) to name but 3.
Perhaps most importantly for A2 G&P students is that the piece predicts that the Supreme Court will have to look at the issue because of the important constitutional issues it raises.
US debt crisis and the power of the President
The last minute deal to solve the debt crisis in the US caused the credit-rating agency Standard and Poor's to downgrade the rating given to US government debt (basically saying that the US is now less likely than 14 other countries including GB to pay its debt in full).
Full analysis of the economics of this here from the BBC's Robert Peston.
Mark Mardell has a great piece explaining who the winners (the Tea Party) and the losers (Obama) are as well as a great summary of the politics of it. Essentially, S&P's decision rests on the idea that the US political system is not up to the task of dealing responsibly with the economic and financial turmoil:
Fundamentally the US was the world's most trusted economy and the trust in it has slipped.
Key for G&P students are the questions it raises about the extremism of the US political system, and the power of the President (or lack of it). Politics is about compromise, but the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has made this very difficult for moderate Republicans to make the sensible choice. As S&P says:
Great charts about debt here from the NY Times.
Further economic and political analysis by the Economist here. The "Too Long Didn't Read" version is that the Republican strategy of wanting to reduce the deficit by spending cuts alone doesn't make economic sense although it makes sense to the Tea Party movement, especially since they will only cut the bits of government they dislike (foreign aid) and not touch the bits they like (health care for the elderly, defence). This piece here goes into it all a bit further, including mentioning the Keynesian economics of defence spending (good for anyone doing Economics at A2).
Which also does raise questions about the power of small groups and Pressure Groups on US politics.
The Republican leadership have problems with the Tea Party movement as this piece from Mark Mardell shows; the leadership of the party doesn't want to alienate either the moderate centrist voter or the Tea Party die-hards.
The Web-site Politico has very interesting an article (admittedly predating the S&P decision) which discusses the problems facing President Obama as he heads into the 2012 election. The TLDR version is that he has a 42% job approval rating and Presidents don't win elections at this level.
Alternatively, the Economist mentions that Presidents are powerless and that "It's the Economy Stupid" which is the main factor which determines who wins.
MSNBC has an article about the power of the Tea Party here:
All of which should give plenty of food for thought as we head towards the next election; how powerful is the president? What influence does he have? How much can movements in parties affect
policies? How effective / extreme is Congress?
It would be almost criminal not to mention the current events whenever possible in an exam question.
Full analysis of the economics of this here from the BBC's Robert Peston.
Mark Mardell has a great piece explaining who the winners (the Tea Party) and the losers (Obama) are as well as a great summary of the politics of it. Essentially, S&P's decision rests on the idea that the US political system is not up to the task of dealing responsibly with the economic and financial turmoil:
"Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising US public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated".
Fundamentally the US was the world's most trusted economy and the trust in it has slipped.
Key for G&P students are the questions it raises about the extremism of the US political system, and the power of the President (or lack of it). Politics is about compromise, but the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has made this very difficult for moderate Republicans to make the sensible choice. As S&P says:
"It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options...
Great charts about debt here from the NY Times.
Further economic and political analysis by the Economist here. The "Too Long Didn't Read" version is that the Republican strategy of wanting to reduce the deficit by spending cuts alone doesn't make economic sense although it makes sense to the Tea Party movement, especially since they will only cut the bits of government they dislike (foreign aid) and not touch the bits they like (health care for the elderly, defence). This piece here goes into it all a bit further, including mentioning the Keynesian economics of defence spending (good for anyone doing Economics at A2).
Which also does raise questions about the power of small groups and Pressure Groups on US politics.
The Republican leadership have problems with the Tea Party movement as this piece from Mark Mardell shows; the leadership of the party doesn't want to alienate either the moderate centrist voter or the Tea Party die-hards.
The Web-site Politico has very interesting an article (admittedly predating the S&P decision) which discusses the problems facing President Obama as he heads into the 2012 election. The TLDR version is that he has a 42% job approval rating and Presidents don't win elections at this level.
Alternatively, the Economist mentions that Presidents are powerless and that "It's the Economy Stupid" which is the main factor which determines who wins.
MSNBC has an article about the power of the Tea Party here:
With the Tea Party about to play its first role in a presidential election, mainstream Republicans hope to harness its energy in campaigns nationwide, as they did in 2010. The trick is to do it while avoiding the damage of that year, when Tea Partyers cost the GOP likely Senate pickups by nominating out-of-the-mainstream conservatives in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado.
All of which should give plenty of food for thought as we head towards the next election; how powerful is the president? What influence does he have? How much can movements in parties affect
policies? How effective / extreme is Congress?
It would be almost criminal not to mention the current events whenever possible in an exam question.
Thursday 21 July 2011
U-Turns and government
Plenty to write about in the last few weeks, especially the overturning of many of the UK government's policies. I'll flesh this out soon.
And that's not even to mention the bust-up about the News of the World...
And that's not even to mention the bust-up about the News of the World...
112th Congress
A very interesting article on the US magazine web-page about the dysfunction at the heart of the US political system. For G&P students it is essential reading as it covers most of the issues connected to the failure of both parties to contribute to the government of the USA in a meaningful way. It's written by Norman Ormstein a writer and scholar who has written books about the subject before. The article can be found here. Great for revision purposes when the time comes!
Thursday 23 June 2011
Obama and 2012
A couple of great articles summarising some of the problems that the Republican party is having finding a contender to fight against the President in the 2012 presidential election. The Democracy in America blog here discussing the fallout from the death of Osama bin Laden in May (the short version is that the President is likely to get re-elected). Why?
There is a long piece here by the BBC's Mark Mardell discussing bin Laden's importance for US politics and the world.
ABC news has a very helpful summary of the key candidates here in their 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: ABC News Guidebook - ABC News
To summarise the problems that the Republican party is having in 2012, the satirical news site "The Onion" has a helpful piece about a surprise contender for 2012 here.
What do you think? Do you have any ideas who might be the Republican candidate?
There is a long piece here by the BBC's Mark Mardell discussing bin Laden's importance for US politics and the world.
ABC news has a very helpful summary of the key candidates here in their 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: ABC News Guidebook - ABC News
To summarise the problems that the Republican party is having in 2012, the satirical news site "The Onion" has a helpful piece about a surprise contender for 2012 here.
What do you think? Do you have any ideas who might be the Republican candidate?
Friday 6 May 2011
AV arguments and the election
The video embedded below has illustrated in a very entertaining way the two different methods of voting that were at stake in the Referendum held yesterday.
This page on the BBC website has lots of detail about the local elections which were held at the same time. Big news for the Scots; the SNP are likely to become an majority administration. Bad times for the Lib Dems; major losses accross the country. There are likely to be troubled times ahead for the coalition as the natural party of opposition (i.e. the Lib Dems) is punished for doing things its supporters didn't like.
This page on the BBC website has lots of detail about the local elections which were held at the same time. Big news for the Scots; the SNP are likely to become an majority administration. Bad times for the Lib Dems; major losses accross the country. There are likely to be troubled times ahead for the coalition as the natural party of opposition (i.e. the Lib Dems) is punished for doing things its supporters didn't like.
Monday 2 May 2011
Obama, Osama and 2012
The Democracy in America blog from the Economist has an interesting post discussing the impact of all this on the 2012 race; all Republican candidates who have been doubting the President's judgement and patriotism are finished (Sarah Palin, Donald Trump etc). Those who are left will have trouble. The likelihood of Obama's re-election has just increased.
Just for the interested, the President did a fine turn at the White House Correspondents Dinner last week (it's an annual event for White House reporters at which the President traditionally delivers an amusing speech):
Wednesday 27 April 2011
AV campaign & the problems of Referendums
The campaigns for and against the AV system, which will culminate in a referendum on May 5th has shown one of the key problems of referendums; neither camp has been straight forward in their campaign and most journalists, commentators and politicians have seemed to turn the vote into a referendum on Nick Clegg, deputy Prime Minister, and the Coalition.
See this article from the Guardian, and this from the ever reliable Bagehot in the Economist.
See this article from the Guardian, and this from the ever reliable Bagehot in the Economist.
Monday 17 January 2011
The Best President
A UK survey has revealed its results assessing the merits of 40 presidents of the United States (2 not counted for shortness of tenure) and it is an interesting read!
The BBC website has a good summary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111
and the full results can be seen at
http://americas.sas.ac.uk/research/survey/overall.htm
In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:
- vision/agenda-setting
- domestic leadership
- foreign policy leadership
- moral authority
- positive historical significance of their legacy
Have a read and see who wins and how George W Bush scored!
The BBC website has a good summary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111
and the full results can be seen at
http://americas.sas.ac.uk/research/survey/overall.htm
In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:
- vision/agenda-setting
- domestic leadership
- foreign policy leadership
- moral authority
- positive historical significance of their legacy
Have a read and see who wins and how George W Bush scored!
Saturday 15 January 2011
What is the left for if it isn't for spending money?
Labour leader Ed Miliband has at last explained briefly what he stands for - it is somewhere between Blairist use of the market to ensure efficiency and produce centrally-driven public service reforms, and traditional left-wing big government initiatives to produce a "rebalanced" economy.
He has of course made a little headway with the Labour vote increasing slightly after the recent by-election in Oldham:
The Lib Dems didn't do too badly - while their vote did slip, they are in government and traditionally parties in government do badly in by-elections. That's not forgetting the issue of cuts which the Government is inflicting on the nation.
This item on the BBC web-site highlights the desire for MiliE to appeal to disaffected Lib Dem voters (how dare the party of liberal idealism actually have to make difficult choices while in government and actually, well, govern!). Interesting for G&P students in the way that MiliE tries to cast the choice that the Lib Dems made last may in going into Coalition as a "tragic mistake" - personally I don't think they had a realistic alternative. A Lib Dem-Labour coalition would have been weak and would have fallen quickly ("a coalition of the loosers"). It would not have had the necessary seats in the House of Commons to demand a majority.
This post from the BBC's Nick Robinson has some very pertinent things to say about the way that MiliE's thinking is going:
The Coalition has raised all sorts of questions over how parties approach issues and probes the way that party allegiances are currently mapped out. It wouldn't be beyond possibility that the dissatisfied Lib Dem supporters (former SDP / Labour members) would return to the Old party fold. The trouble is, that while it's all very well to be idealistic and to promise not to raise University Tuition fees (as the Lib Dems did before the election) when you are not expecting to have to go along with any promise you make.
The Lib Dems have for years been the posturing opposition to business as usual. When thrust into Government, tough choices have to be made, especially at a time when there are significant questions over government debt. Any party not prepared to govern is merely a Pressure Group.
He has of course made a little headway with the Labour vote increasing slightly after the recent by-election in Oldham:
The Lib Dems didn't do too badly - while their vote did slip, they are in government and traditionally parties in government do badly in by-elections. That's not forgetting the issue of cuts which the Government is inflicting on the nation.
This item on the BBC web-site highlights the desire for MiliE to appeal to disaffected Lib Dem voters (how dare the party of liberal idealism actually have to make difficult choices while in government and actually, well, govern!). Interesting for G&P students in the way that MiliE tries to cast the choice that the Lib Dems made last may in going into Coalition as a "tragic mistake" - personally I don't think they had a realistic alternative. A Lib Dem-Labour coalition would have been weak and would have fallen quickly ("a coalition of the loosers"). It would not have had the necessary seats in the House of Commons to demand a majority.
This post from the BBC's Nick Robinson has some very pertinent things to say about the way that MiliE's thinking is going:
Ed Miliband does not yet have a convincing narrative which excuses the previous government for its mistakes and flagrant dishonesty with the obvious truth. Nor yet does he have a clear indication (beyond warm words) of where he will be taking his party, and how he can put Labour-friendly policies into action without any money to spend as previous Labour governments have done:My sense is that Ed Miliband's speech is made up of the things he instinctively believes and those bits of political positioning he's been advised to adopt. His own views are interesting. At one point he argues: "We can't build economic efficiency or social justice simply in the way we have tried before. It won't be enough to rely on a deregulated market economy providing the tax revenues for redistribution. New Labour's critical insight in the 1990s and 2000s was that we needed to be stewards of a successful market economy to make possible social justice through redistribution. The critical insight of Labour in my generation is that both wealth creation and social justice need to be built into the way our economy works."By this he says he means a high wage economy, the introduction of a Living Wage and respect for communities so that their concerns about government targets, out-of-town supermarkets and post office closures are not simply ignored in the name of efficiency. What he does not say is how this rebalanced economy - something which, incidentally, I have heard both George Osborne and Vince Cable call for - can be created. Watching how his thinking develops will be fascinating.
Ed Miliband needs not only to provide a credible alternative to the coalition's policy of cuts and "Maoist" public service reforms. He needs to explain what social democratic politics looks like in an era without easy money to spend. To do so he may need to develop an account of Labour's period in office that addresses more than just a failure to regulate the banks and a slowness of language.
The Coalition has raised all sorts of questions over how parties approach issues and probes the way that party allegiances are currently mapped out. It wouldn't be beyond possibility that the dissatisfied Lib Dem supporters (former SDP / Labour members) would return to the Old party fold. The trouble is, that while it's all very well to be idealistic and to promise not to raise University Tuition fees (as the Lib Dems did before the election) when you are not expecting to have to go along with any promise you make.
The Lib Dems have for years been the posturing opposition to business as usual. When thrust into Government, tough choices have to be made, especially at a time when there are significant questions over government debt. Any party not prepared to govern is merely a Pressure Group.
Monday 10 January 2011
Extremism and Politics in the USA
The news here about the attempted killing of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the slaying of 6 others including Judge Roll, who was an Arizonan district court judge is, of course, shocking.
A good time to reflect on extremism in American politics - a question which can come up in various forms in the exam. Various interesting pieces are all over the news, but economist turned New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman has a good piece here which discusses the issue:
Useful stuff for G & P students to ponder but for me the fact that stands out is the 300% rise in threats against members of Congress.
A worrying conclusion from Mr Krugman:
As an antidote to all this, The Economist magazine's Democracy in America blog has this post which accuses Paul Krugman of "irresponsibility" and a left-leaning partisan opinion. It highlights as an alternative another article in the New York times which goes into the reasons for the attack and doesn't see much right-wing conspiracy, but rather overheated rhetoric from the media and political types of all stripes. The piece highlights other unfortunate political victims of violence:
A good time to reflect on extremism in American politics - a question which can come up in various forms in the exam. Various interesting pieces are all over the news, but economist turned New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman has a good piece here which discusses the issue:
I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence...
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line....
But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
Useful stuff for G & P students to ponder but for me the fact that stands out is the 300% rise in threats against members of Congress.
A worrying conclusion from Mr Krugman:
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
As an antidote to all this, The Economist magazine's Democracy in America blog has this post which accuses Paul Krugman of "irresponsibility" and a left-leaning partisan opinion. It highlights as an alternative another article in the New York times which goes into the reasons for the attack and doesn't see much right-wing conspiracy, but rather overheated rhetoric from the media and political types of all stripes. The piece highlights other unfortunate political victims of violence:
Nine years after Kennedy was killed, George Wallace embarked on his second campaign for the presidency. This was the early 1970s, the high tide of far-left violence — the era of the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army — and Wallace’s race-baiting politics made him an obvious target for protests. On his final, fateful day of campaigning, he faced a barrage of coins, oranges, rocks and tomatoes, amid shouts of “remember Selma!” and “Hitler for vice president!”
But Arthur Bremer, who shot Wallace that afternoon, paralyzing him from the waist down, had only a tenuous connection to left-wing politics. He didn’t care much about Wallace’s views on race: he just wanted to assassinate somebody (Richard Nixon had been his original target), as “a statement of my manhood for the world to see.”
Monday 3 January 2011
Republicanism and 2012
Journalist Stephen Budiansky's blog has an interesting graph; showing the relationship between the proportion of Republican votes and mean Obesity rates in red states. Obvious health-warning aside, it is interesting for anyone pondering the nature of America and its politics. However, anyone should bear in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
The original blog post can be found here.
The BBC's America Editor (and OE) Mark Mardell has an interesting post here about the possible Republican contenders for 2012's Presidential run. It'll be interesting to see how far Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin will continue to portray herself as a "Pit-bull with Lipstick" and whether the Republican base will continue to take the party to the right and ward off those RINOs. With the independent centrist voters who make up 1/3 of the electorate being conspicuously anti-Palin (they are the ones who will decide the result of the election) will the Republicans chose a moderate candidate rather than a divisive figure like Palin?
There is a chance that they will chose a comparatively moderate figure like, say, Mike Huckabee. This would rescue the Republican party from the cul-de-sac they are currently in and help to heal some of the unpleasant and partisan "Culture wars" in America at the moment.
Probably unlikely everything being equal. We'll see.
The original blog post can be found here.
The BBC's America Editor (and OE) Mark Mardell has an interesting post here about the possible Republican contenders for 2012's Presidential run. It'll be interesting to see how far Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin will continue to portray herself as a "Pit-bull with Lipstick" and whether the Republican base will continue to take the party to the right and ward off those RINOs. With the independent centrist voters who make up 1/3 of the electorate being conspicuously anti-Palin (they are the ones who will decide the result of the election) will the Republicans chose a moderate candidate rather than a divisive figure like Palin?
There is a chance that they will chose a comparatively moderate figure like, say, Mike Huckabee. This would rescue the Republican party from the cul-de-sac they are currently in and help to heal some of the unpleasant and partisan "Culture wars" in America at the moment.
Probably unlikely everything being equal. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)