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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)