The Mid-terms saw both the House and the Senate being controlled by the Republicans. Further detail about races and the overall view here from the BBC. For example, Democratic Representative for New York Louise Slaughter, an experienced member of Congress, won by the narrowest of margins; 50.2% to 49.8%. "Blue-Dog" Democrat John Barrow lost, meaning that conservative Democrats are largely extinct in Congress.
What are the prospect for the US Government in the next two years? President Obama and new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have pledged to work together on issues they both agree in (tax reform and foreign trade pacts).
Further analysis here from the Economist, which highlights the problem - the Tea-Partiers and others may not allow the two to work together. Rolling Stone magazine discusses this very issue here, and looks forward excitedly to the battle within the Republican Party and the Presidential election of 2016.
All of which is great for G and P students contemplating the powers of Congress and the President for Unit 4C and elections in Unit 3C. If there is continued gridlock (something the Republicans are trying to blame on the Democrats), the President may well use executive orders to get things done; for example on immigration.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the turnout for these mid-terms is very low, and is lower than the last mid-terms in 2010 (there is a great map and selection of graphs on this page). Overall, it was 36.6% down from 40.9%; somewhat predictably, Democrat-supporting voters were the least likely to turnout to vote.
As a final note, Rolling Stone's October issue had a great article by Economist Paul Krugman favourably evaluating the Obama Presidency. Well worth a read.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Sunday, 20 July 2014
New events in US Politics - Summer 2014
In brief a potentially significant Supreme Court decision has been made which undermines Obamacare and also has implications for how religion is treated in the USA. The short version is that a firm is now going to be treated like an individual in respect to its religious beliefs, and that these can now not be forced to obey federal law. See here and here for analysis from the Economist. The decision is called Burwell v Hobby Lobby (click here for the Wikipedia page). The Washington Post has more here.
Gov and Pol students for Unit 4C could use this when discussing the power of the President and the significance of the Supreme Court.
In early August, President Obama was sued by Congress for being a tyrant, with analysis by the Economist here. Good for anyone contemplating Presidential power and the power of Congress. Worth bearing in mind that the Republican-controlled House has tried over 50 times to destroy Obamacare. This is also useful when contemplating the interests of the Republican Party.
Elsewhere, the current 112th Congress is shaping up to be the least productive in history. Details and analysis from the Washington Post, plus some analysis from Ars Technica about the issue. While it may be expected that there would be little progress on the major issues (Obamacare, taxes, etc), some minor ones (Internet Trolls, copyright reform) don't see any progress either. Useful stuff for Gov and Pol students contemplating the (in)ability of Congress to get things done.
Against the background of this, the inability of Congress to address immigration effectively is striking. A passionate article in Rolling Stone discusses the impact of the Tea Party on efforts to address the 90,000 unaccompanied and undocumented minors who try to enter the country from Mexico every year. The short version is that Tea Party Republicans (Ted Cruz etc) have refused to allow funds to be used to help these refugees, and instead have agitated for increased border security. The political impact is affecting President Obama's standing too.
In another development, left-leaning former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has written a book proposing 6 new amendments to the US constitution. The wording of the amendments themselves are detailed in this blog post by an assistant law professor in South Texas. The book itself and its implications are reviewed here in the Huffington Post and here in the Wall St Journal.
Further analysis at another time I think, but for now the WSJ makes a very useful point; while Justice Stevens highlights some of the major flaws in the US political system (Gerrymandering, the Death Penalty, Gun Ownership), he sees Amending the constitution as the solution. As Gov and Pol students will be / are aware this is a long and complex process, so perhaps Congress passing laws would be a better solution.
Gov and Pol students for Unit 4C could use this when discussing the power of the President and the significance of the Supreme Court.
In early August, President Obama was sued by Congress for being a tyrant, with analysis by the Economist here. Good for anyone contemplating Presidential power and the power of Congress. Worth bearing in mind that the Republican-controlled House has tried over 50 times to destroy Obamacare. This is also useful when contemplating the interests of the Republican Party.
Elsewhere, the current 112th Congress is shaping up to be the least productive in history. Details and analysis from the Washington Post, plus some analysis from Ars Technica about the issue. While it may be expected that there would be little progress on the major issues (Obamacare, taxes, etc), some minor ones (Internet Trolls, copyright reform) don't see any progress either. Useful stuff for Gov and Pol students contemplating the (in)ability of Congress to get things done.
Against the background of this, the inability of Congress to address immigration effectively is striking. A passionate article in Rolling Stone discusses the impact of the Tea Party on efforts to address the 90,000 unaccompanied and undocumented minors who try to enter the country from Mexico every year. The short version is that Tea Party Republicans (Ted Cruz etc) have refused to allow funds to be used to help these refugees, and instead have agitated for increased border security. The political impact is affecting President Obama's standing too.
In another development, left-leaning former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has written a book proposing 6 new amendments to the US constitution. The wording of the amendments themselves are detailed in this blog post by an assistant law professor in South Texas. The book itself and its implications are reviewed here in the Huffington Post and here in the Wall St Journal.
Further analysis at another time I think, but for now the WSJ makes a very useful point; while Justice Stevens highlights some of the major flaws in the US political system (Gerrymandering, the Death Penalty, Gun Ownership), he sees Amending the constitution as the solution. As Gov and Pol students will be / are aware this is a long and complex process, so perhaps Congress passing laws would be a better solution.
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Presidential Power - 2014 prisoner swap
Anyone contemplating Presidential Power for Unit 4 should consider what President Obama's recent actions over a prisoner swap, and the subsequent political storm says about the state of play in the US.
In short, US Soldier Sgt Bowe Bergdahl had been taken prisoner in 2009 by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This year, Obama's administration swapped him for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
On the face of it this seems uncontroversial; a US soldier returned home, and the release of five prisoners in Guantanamo, the prison that Obama promised to close.
Crucially (and this is a great bit of info for G and P students) he signed an executive order requiring that Guantanamo be closed within a year. This was back in 2009. The prison is still open.
The Republican Party and others are making a big deal over this since this action should have been approved by Congress 30 days before, but wasn't. According to Chuck Hagel the US Secretary of State, this was in the national interest and the detainees in Guantanamo were of little risk to national security. According to BBC news:
The main problem with Guantanamo Bay and the inability of the President to fulfill the action he signed into law, is that these are extremely murky legal waters. Their legal status has been the subject of Supreme Court case Boumediene v Bush, but the very short version is that these prisoners have not been charged with a crime and are highly unlikely to ever be.
Obama himself described Guantanamo Bay this way in an address to a joint session of Congress:
 |
| Sgt Bergdahl. Picture Credit: BBC |
In short, US Soldier Sgt Bowe Bergdahl had been taken prisoner in 2009 by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This year, Obama's administration swapped him for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
On the face of it this seems uncontroversial; a US soldier returned home, and the release of five prisoners in Guantanamo, the prison that Obama promised to close.
Crucially (and this is a great bit of info for G and P students) he signed an executive order requiring that Guantanamo be closed within a year. This was back in 2009. The prison is still open.
The Republican Party and others are making a big deal over this since this action should have been approved by Congress 30 days before, but wasn't. According to Chuck Hagel the US Secretary of State, this was in the national interest and the detainees in Guantanamo were of little risk to national security. According to BBC news:
"The defence secretary also said he and other national security officials were not "under any illusions about these five detainees" but said they were "appropriate" to release because the US had no basis to charge them with a crime."The other controversy about the swap is that there are allegations Sgt Bergdahl disappeared under suspicious circumstances, and opponents of President Obama are using this as a stick to beat the administration with.
The main problem with Guantanamo Bay and the inability of the President to fulfill the action he signed into law, is that these are extremely murky legal waters. Their legal status has been the subject of Supreme Court case Boumediene v Bush, but the very short version is that these prisoners have not been charged with a crime and are highly unlikely to ever be.
Obama himself described Guantanamo Bay this way in an address to a joint session of Congress:
To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.
Although not a neutral source, The Guardian has more here about how prisoners were looked after.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Picking Sarah Palin Undermined McCain’s ‘Country First’ - by Louis J. Sutton
There is a lot I
admire about John McCain. Following his presidential campaign as well as
reflecting on him since brings up some honourable achievements. Along with being a war veteran, McCain most
notably defended Obama against racial abuse from audience members in a town
hall style meeting. He also showed immense reluctance to run a ‘negative
campaign’ against Barrack Obama. More recently he has been
pushing for a motion to reduce the importance of money in political elections,
something Obama seems to be neglecting, as well as encouraging good bipartisan
relationships between the two parties.
Despite this, the announcement of Sarah Palin
as his running mate on the 29th of August 2008 has nothing admirable about it.
Why did John McCain pick Sarah Palin?
In my mind, his choice had everything to do with the campaign and not even remotely related to ‘country first’, his own campaign slogan. Strategically, Palin was near perfect. She drew in Hilary supporters and gave the Republican Party a female friendly face, meanwhile appealing to the Tea Party and the right-wing of the GOP. Up until her expensive clothing scandal, Palin had given out the image as an everyday hockey mum people could relate to; almost ideal.
Why did John McCain pick Sarah Palin?
In my mind, his choice had everything to do with the campaign and not even remotely related to ‘country first’, his own campaign slogan. Strategically, Palin was near perfect. She drew in Hilary supporters and gave the Republican Party a female friendly face, meanwhile appealing to the Tea Party and the right-wing of the GOP. Up until her expensive clothing scandal, Palin had given out the image as an everyday hockey mum people could relate to; almost ideal.
However, when thinking about a VP choice, a
nominee must consider how they offer not only a strategic advantage in the
campaign, but expertise in the white house, McCain neglected the latter.
Although some seem Palin's gaffes as simple mistakes, I think when compiled it
becomes clear she wasn’t up the job.
This was the conclusion given to McCain by
those vetting Palin for VP.
"Democrats upset at McCain's anti-Obama 'celebrity' advertisements will mock Palin as an inexperienced beauty queen whose main national exposure was a photo-spread in Vogue in February 2008. Even in campaigning for governor, she made a number of gaffes, and the Anchorage Daily News expressed concern that she often seemed 'unprepared or over her head' in a campaign run by a friend."
The vetting process was evidently brief as it fails to mention her significant lack of foreign policy knowledge, something Joe Biden excelled at. These Clips should show her utter lack of understanding about Foreign Policy.
Although I acknowledge that the vetting process was brief and that with prior knowledge Palin would not have been on his ticket I still see it as utterly irresponsible on behalf of McCain. Not only was she weak in her understanding of foreign policy, but she would have been one step away from being the most power person in the world, something which to my eyes is inconceivable.
I must recommend the film Game Change. It gives more
insights into some of her terrible blunders, while giving a good overview of
the campaign process. Steve Schmidt (McCain’s operations manager during the
campaign) said the film tells "the truth of the campaign”, making it definitely worth a watch.
by Louis Sutton - 1st November 2013
Friday, 10 May 2013
States Rights & the power of the Vice President
A blog post from the Economist magazine discusses the importance of States rights and also a recent law in Texas which seems to underline the rights of state officials to ignore federal law. So, the federal government may pass a law to limit access to guns, but Texas certainly doesn't have to enforce that law:A quick reminder that the debate about gay marriage has reached the Supreme Court and that some kind of decision over California's Proposition 8 (a popular vote which banned it) is due some point in late May or June. Bloomberg has an article about it here, indicating the decision may not be entirely straightforward. The decision over Obamacare was not straightforward either, although some simplification is sensible for the A2 exam.
The short version of the Obamacare decision is that the law is constitutional, but only if classed as a tax (which the Federal government has the right to levy). The problem for the Obama administration is that Obamacare was not called a tax and in fact they denied that it was.To finish, there is a great article in the Economist this week which discusses the various methods Obama has used to get round the obstructionist Congress. You can find it here. He has used the control of the executive to ignore certain parts of legislation, announced this using signing statements, and used "recess appointments" to get members of the executive confirmed without Senate approval. Great stuff.
[Picture Credits: Top - Rolling Stone. Middle - The Economist. Bottom - Hoai Phuong, Flickr]
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Presidential Power
A major issue in the Unit 4C paper (US politics), is likely to be Presidential power and how much the President has in reality.
With this in mind, below, you'll find the complete Inaugural address from the 2013 ceremony on Monday 21 January. Here is BBC coverage, and the Economist blogs have some interesting things to say here and here.
Ian Bremmer, a blogger and political commentator has summed it up thus:
"Together, we will pursue my objectives."
What does the inaguration say about Presidential power?
Ian Bremmer, a blogger and political commentator has summed it up thus:
"Together, we will pursue my objectives."
What does the inaguration say about Presidential power?
Friday, 21 December 2012
US - Executive appointments and other issues 2012
Plenty of issues have arisen over the Summer and over the Autumn. With brevity in mind (and before I forget them), examples to consider for the Summer exam:
1. The likely appoinment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defence - there is controversy reported here about something he apparently said in 1998. Further discussion of these appointments is here.
2. Hilary Clinton being replaced by former Presidential candidate John Kerry as Secretary of Defence. BBC report is here. Both of which are likely to be controversial, especially because of the highly-charged partisan Congress. Keep an eye on the Congressional Standing committees in this area in due course.
3. After the tragedy of the Connecticut Elementary School shooting, Obama has called for more gun control. He has appointed Vice-President Joe Biden (who knows his way around Congress) to lead the initiative, as reported here in the NY Times.
4. Somewhat predictably Pressure Groups such as the NRA have reacted with a response which does not demand an increase gun control, by erm, recommending armed police officers in every school. Good for questions about Pressure groups.
5. The Economist's Lexington columnist has some very interesting things to say about gun control, the Second Amendment and public opinion here. The short version being that not a lot will change, sadly.
6. While the results of the US Presidential election are clear, the likelihood of increased partisan politics and a lacklustre Congress are probably increased. Good stuff here in the Economist (although there is so much out there you could read).
7. The problems for Republicans are many, and Andrew Sullivan (always interesting but not without his bias) has a great article here.
8. The end of 2012 also saw 5 US states legalise Marijuana, which has implications for State vs Federal power (it's still illegal under Federal law). See here and here for BBC articles.
9. The US Supreme Court will be looking at gay marriage in 2013, which may well have profound implications.
10. There are proposals to reform the rules governing Filibusters in Congress - at present, the mere threat of one causes gridlock. The proposals essentially require the filibuster to start before a cloture vote is called - derailing the legislative process. Further information here from the Huffington post.
[Picture Credit - The Economist]
1. The likely appoinment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defence - there is controversy reported here about something he apparently said in 1998. Further discussion of these appointments is here.2. Hilary Clinton being replaced by former Presidential candidate John Kerry as Secretary of Defence. BBC report is here. Both of which are likely to be controversial, especially because of the highly-charged partisan Congress. Keep an eye on the Congressional Standing committees in this area in due course.
3. After the tragedy of the Connecticut Elementary School shooting, Obama has called for more gun control. He has appointed Vice-President Joe Biden (who knows his way around Congress) to lead the initiative, as reported here in the NY Times.
4. Somewhat predictably Pressure Groups such as the NRA have reacted with a response which does not demand an increase gun control, by erm, recommending armed police officers in every school. Good for questions about Pressure groups.
5. The Economist's Lexington columnist has some very interesting things to say about gun control, the Second Amendment and public opinion here. The short version being that not a lot will change, sadly.
6. While the results of the US Presidential election are clear, the likelihood of increased partisan politics and a lacklustre Congress are probably increased. Good stuff here in the Economist (although there is so much out there you could read).
7. The problems for Republicans are many, and Andrew Sullivan (always interesting but not without his bias) has a great article here.
8. The end of 2012 also saw 5 US states legalise Marijuana, which has implications for State vs Federal power (it's still illegal under Federal law). See here and here for BBC articles.
9. The US Supreme Court will be looking at gay marriage in 2013, which may well have profound implications.
10. There are proposals to reform the rules governing Filibusters in Congress - at present, the mere threat of one causes gridlock. The proposals essentially require the filibuster to start before a cloture vote is called - derailing the legislative process. Further information here from the Huffington post.
[Picture Credit - The Economist]
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
US Presidential Race 2012
The race for the White House continues with its ups and downs. As I like a good graph, I thought I would create one to show the race for the White House. It is a bit complex, but an easy way to check how the comparative fortunes of the Republican candidates continue. I have put up the approval rating of President Obama on there too as a point of comparison. Technically the approve / disapprove rating of the leader of the free world does not equate to the support by Republican voters for their candidates to be Presidential nominee, but I think it looks interesting.
It was created in Smartboard and so the scale is not exact. However it will help to whet your appetite in time for the results of the Florida primary; will Romney beat Newt?
Enjoy.
It was created in Smartboard and so the scale is not exact. However it will help to whet your appetite in time for the results of the Florida primary; will Romney beat Newt?
Enjoy.
Friday, 19 August 2011
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.
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?
Monday, 1 November 2010
Gerrymandering
A quick post with a link before the results of the mid-terms about Gerrymandering; which is when a politician re-draws electoral boundaries to ensure that they are voted in by favourable voters. The Economist's Democracy in America blog draws attention to the forthcoming documentary:
It's a very important issue in American politics for some; arguably is it a key reason why American politics is so partisan.
President Obama's interview with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" mentions it too. In the interview he does also highlight a whole load of issues which G&P students can mention (Gerrymandering, Filibustering, partisanship etc) in any critique of the US political system. Entertaining stuff too:
Part one is here:
Part two is here:
The Mid-terms take place tonight, so there is bound to be plenty to chew over. In the meantime, there is this chatty post from The Economist's Democracy in America Blog, and another from the same blog about the inability of the American left to cope with the ideology of the right (the Tea Party-ers can evoke feelings about American history that left-leaning Democrats have failed to do)
It's a very important issue in American politics for some; arguably is it a key reason why American politics is so partisan.
President Obama's interview with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" mentions it too. In the interview he does also highlight a whole load of issues which G&P students can mention (Gerrymandering, Filibustering, partisanship etc) in any critique of the US political system. Entertaining stuff too:
Part one is here:
Part two is here:
The Mid-terms take place tonight, so there is bound to be plenty to chew over. In the meantime, there is this chatty post from The Economist's Democracy in America Blog, and another from the same blog about the inability of the American left to cope with the ideology of the right (the Tea Party-ers can evoke feelings about American history that left-leaning Democrats have failed to do)
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Obama and the Demoncrats; Glenn Beck and Republicanism
The Economist's Lexington has an interesting post here about President Obama's campaigning message in the run-up to the mid-terms. Essentially the Democrats are ignoring their extraordinary reform of Health Care in favour of talking about job creation in these post-credit crunch times. The President is soft-peddling his success in getting this major reform of America:
This is of interest to G&P students contemplating any essay about Presidential power, or the direction of the Democratic party.
Healthcare reform may well prove to be a big success in the future, but the costs seem to be very high and benefits are not being felt sufficiently to outweigh the effect of high unemployment and falling house prices.
Elsewhere Glenn Beck, a talk-radio and TV pundit on Fox news who is, um, fairly extravagant in his love for America and hatred of liberals has been campaigning to "get America back". He even has founded a University of his own (latin motto: "Revolution against tyrants, submission to God").
There is not the space to analyse the merits or otherwise of Glenn Beck's views here. However, his views are interesting to G&P students because he is beloved by the Tea Party strand of the Republican party; the core voters who are mad that Obama has got in and is passing laws to reform America. Some call him a communist and a socialist and a dictator and a fascist (I don't think he can be all four). There is a good article from Newsweek about Beck and his impact on the Tea Party and on liberals too here. A brief couple of quotes will help:
However, he and Sarah Palin are making the weather in the Republican party and its likely success in November. The BBC's Mark Mardell, one of the resident OEs and US correspondent, thinks it likely Palin will run for the Republican nomination for the 2012 race.
I think its worth while taking a look at some of Beck's statements. On calling Obama a racist white-hater in an extract from a long interview by CBS' Katie Couric (the full interview is here):
The Washington Post describes Beck as trying to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marchers for tax-hating conservatives:
And from the man himself in a transcript of an interview on his own web-site he compared the US government increasing taxes to Nazis persecuting Jews in 1930s Germany:
Overall, while Beck may be a little extreme, there are a significant number of Republicans who accept some of his argument and this feeds into the Tea Part and into the Republican Party itself. It is likely that the core Republicans will turn out for the mid-terms and former Obama-supporting voters may stay away.
An interesting article here on Slate.com by Christopher Hitchens which analyses the Tea Party-Beck phenomenon:
There is a strand of thought that there is a crisis of confidence in the US which includes (according to Hitchens):
The Democracy in America blog has an article along similar lines here.
The White House has presumably decided that its signature legislation is going to be a negative in a campaign dominated by jobs and the economy. Barnes points out that by steering clear of the health issue local candidates will find it easier to separate their fortunes from Mr Obama's, whose numbers have tanked. The trouble with that way of thinking is that it leaves the Republicans free to paint health reform in the most negative possible light. Worse, it suggests that Mr Obama and his party lack the courage of their rather expensive convictions. If the Democrats are too nervous to defend the bill, perhaps they shouldn't have passed it.
This is of interest to G&P students contemplating any essay about Presidential power, or the direction of the Democratic party.
Healthcare reform may well prove to be a big success in the future, but the costs seem to be very high and benefits are not being felt sufficiently to outweigh the effect of high unemployment and falling house prices.
Elsewhere Glenn Beck, a talk-radio and TV pundit on Fox news who is, um, fairly extravagant in his love for America and hatred of liberals has been campaigning to "get America back". He even has founded a University of his own (latin motto: "Revolution against tyrants, submission to God").
There is not the space to analyse the merits or otherwise of Glenn Beck's views here. However, his views are interesting to G&P students because he is beloved by the Tea Party strand of the Republican party; the core voters who are mad that Obama has got in and is passing laws to reform America. Some call him a communist and a socialist and a dictator and a fascist (I don't think he can be all four). There is a good article from Newsweek about Beck and his impact on the Tea Party and on liberals too here. A brief couple of quotes will help:
Tea partiers are driven by the belief that the America that elected Barack Obama isn't their America, and Beck comforts them by telling them they're right: that the America they love, the America they now feel so distant from, the America of faith and the Founders and some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past, is still there, waiting to be awakened from Obama's evil spell.
For liberals, Beck serves a similar purpose. In an era of massive problems and extreme change—the Great Recession, the health-care overhaul, etc.—liberals can avoid the difficult question of whether Obama is leading America in the right direction by simply telling themselves that the only alternative would be someone like Glenn Beck: hyperbolic, demagogic, irrational, and slightly unhinged—"just like all conservatives." This is comforting. And by choosing to argue against Beck's patently absurd insinuations instead of, say, the legitimate policy proposals of someone like Rep. Paul Ryan... liberals can flatter themselves into believing they're smarter and better informed than anyone who happens to disagree with them.
However, he and Sarah Palin are making the weather in the Republican party and its likely success in November. The BBC's Mark Mardell, one of the resident OEs and US correspondent, thinks it likely Palin will run for the Republican nomination for the 2012 race.
I think its worth while taking a look at some of Beck's statements. On calling Obama a racist white-hater in an extract from a long interview by CBS' Katie Couric (the full interview is here):
The Washington Post describes Beck as trying to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marchers for tax-hating conservatives:
Finally, Beck updated the meaning of the civil rights movement so that it is no longer about black people; it is about protecting anti-tax conservatives from liberals.
And from the man himself in a transcript of an interview on his own web-site he compared the US government increasing taxes to Nazis persecuting Jews in 1930s Germany:
Big business, big labor and big government. This is, this is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations and the government. And you know what, guys? If people like you don't take a stand and I'm not suggesting that you, you know, don't sign or do sign. That's up to you. You've got a lot riding on it. But at some point you know what poem keeps going through my mind is, you know, first they came for the Jews. People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn't really affect me; well, I'm not a bondholder; well, I'm not in banking industry; well, I'm not a big CEO; I'm not on Wall Street; I'm not a car dealer; I'm not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they are going to come for you.
Overall, while Beck may be a little extreme, there are a significant number of Republicans who accept some of his argument and this feeds into the Tea Part and into the Republican Party itself. It is likely that the core Republicans will turn out for the mid-terms and former Obama-supporting voters may stay away.
An interesting article here on Slate.com by Christopher Hitchens which analyses the Tea Party-Beck phenomenon:
...nobody with any feeling for the zeitgeist can avoid noticing the symptoms of white unease and the additionally uneasy forms that its expression is beginning to take.
There is a strand of thought that there is a crisis of confidence in the US which includes (according to Hitchens):
This summer, then, has been the perfect register of the new anxiety, beginning with the fracas over Arizona's immigration law, gaining in intensity with the proposal by some Republicans to amend the 14th Amendment so as to de-naturalize "anchor babies," cresting with the continuing row over the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque, and culminating, at least symbolically, with a quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster calling for a Christian religious revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
The Democracy in America blog has an article along similar lines here.
Sunday, 29 August 2010
The limits of Presidential power; Gay marriage and the New York Mosque
Some interesting articles about the limits of presidential power, and why they should (or shouldn't depending on your point of view) get involved in complex domestic issues which polarise opinion.
There are two current news stories which relate to this; the first being Gay marriage and Proposition 8 which I have posted about before, and the second being the proposal to build a mosque in New York near the site of the September 11 attacks, Ground Zero.
Essentially there are two arguments about whether Presidents should get involved and show their support one way or the other. President Obama has repeatedly said that he was against gay marriage, but that the way to prevent it should be done through the states and not in an amendment to the constitution. This position has caused an outcry in certain circles, notably this piece on the CBS News web-site:
The Economist's Democracy in America blog, predictably, has a more cautious message; that for a president to come out and support an issue makes that issue instantly politicised and polarised:
The second issue which has become a political hot-potato recently is the outrage which has followed the announcement that a mosque was to be built in New York near Ground Zero. Strangely, for a multi-racial and multi-cultural society Americans and their politicians have overwhelmingly come out against the plan. This is, obviously, despite the fact that the attacks on Sept 11th were against thousands of people of all faiths, including Muslims.
President Obama at first seemed to come out in favour of the mosque-building plan, but then seemed to change tack and say that he was not discussing the wisdom of building it, but rather that the Islamic organisation in question had the right to do so. Arguably, this is another case where Obama is being cautious and is trying to avoid making the issue any more partisan than it is already.
I find it interesting, that according to this piece here, New York City has over 100 mosques already, for the 8.4 million inhabitants. According to this poll by the right-leaning Fox News, there is support for the right to build, but not the wisdom (commentary by politics web-site Five-Thirty-eight):
New York Times columnist Stephen Budiansky has a great graphic on his blog which summarises the absurdity of the furore in the run-up to the mid-terms very neatly:
Essentially both of the stories above are grounded in the rights of Americans to act as enshrined in the constitution, attempts to curtail those rights, and whether or not presidents should get involved in these key issues.
Interesting stuff for G&P students contemplating the limitations of presidential power.
There are two current news stories which relate to this; the first being Gay marriage and Proposition 8 which I have posted about before, and the second being the proposal to build a mosque in New York near the site of the September 11 attacks, Ground Zero.
Essentially there are two arguments about whether Presidents should get involved and show their support one way or the other. President Obama has repeatedly said that he was against gay marriage, but that the way to prevent it should be done through the states and not in an amendment to the constitution. This position has caused an outcry in certain circles, notably this piece on the CBS News web-site:
Obama argues that he is against gay marriage while also opposing efforts like Prop 8 that would ban it. He justifies this by saying that state constitutions should not be used to reduce rights. (His exact words: "I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you’re playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.").
The Economist's Democracy in America blog, predictably, has a more cautious message; that for a president to come out and support an issue makes that issue instantly politicised and polarised:
But that, of course, is the point: presidents are expected to operate within existing political conditions, not engage in theoretical speculation. What would have been the actual political consequences of a decision by Barack Obama to come out in favour of gay marriage in the past year and a half? I don't think there can be any doubt that such a move would have re-politicised an issue that, remarkably, has become steadily less partisan in recent years.
The second issue which has become a political hot-potato recently is the outrage which has followed the announcement that a mosque was to be built in New York near Ground Zero. Strangely, for a multi-racial and multi-cultural society Americans and their politicians have overwhelmingly come out against the plan. This is, obviously, despite the fact that the attacks on Sept 11th were against thousands of people of all faiths, including Muslims.
President Obama at first seemed to come out in favour of the mosque-building plan, but then seemed to change tack and say that he was not discussing the wisdom of building it, but rather that the Islamic organisation in question had the right to do so. Arguably, this is another case where Obama is being cautious and is trying to avoid making the issue any more partisan than it is already.
I find it interesting, that according to this piece here, New York City has over 100 mosques already, for the 8.4 million inhabitants. According to this poll by the right-leaning Fox News, there is support for the right to build, but not the wisdom (commentary by politics web-site Five-Thirty-eight):
A group of Muslims plans to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Do you think it is appropriate to build a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero, or do you think it would be wrong to do so?
Only 30 percent of respondents said "appropriate", while 64 percent said "wrong" -- consistent with the apparent unpopularity of the mosque in other polls.
But Fox also followed up with this question:
Regardless of whether you think it is appropriate to build a mosque near ground zero, do you think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there, or don’t they have that right?
Here, the numbers were nearly reversed: 61 percent of respondents, including 69 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans, said the developers had the right to build the mosque; 34 percent said they did not.
New York Times columnist Stephen Budiansky has a great graphic on his blog which summarises the absurdity of the furore in the run-up to the mid-terms very neatly:
Essentially both of the stories above are grounded in the rights of Americans to act as enshrined in the constitution, attempts to curtail those rights, and whether or not presidents should get involved in these key issues.
Interesting stuff for G&P students contemplating the limitations of presidential power.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Obama, the mid-terms and the 2012 Republican race
I've just come across a couple of articles on the web-site of centrist (liberal) US magazine the New Republic, which help to expand on a couple of things on my previous post about Obama and the mid-terms.
Here is one discussing Republican former Presidential candidate, and candidate for the 2012 race. Specifically it focuses on his somewhat bizarre take on the non-controversial nuclear-weapons-reducing treaty New START. Essentially, according to the article, the Republicans are becoming increasingly "hawkish" about anything which smacks of reducing spending on defense. They also hate President Obama and everything he stands for, so won't give him any sort of political victory even if it's in US and World interests. Obama's policy of reducing nuclear weapons in the US and Russia seems like a good strategy and helps to encourage co-operation on thorny issues like Iran's dash for the nuke (to borrow a UK phrase: "tough on nuclear holocausts, tough on the causes on nuclear holocausts"). Mitt Romney wants to stick it to those pesky Ruskies because that plays well with the Republican base in these uncertain Tea-Party influenced times.
This article here reflects on the problem Obama has with getting anyone to listen to his message about jobs and the recovery, which has an impact on the Democratic result in the mid-terms.
This one delves into some of the races which are a source of worry for Democrats in the mid-terms. One to watch is the battle for Nevada with Senate Majority Leader (Democrat) Harry Reid, which he looks likely to lose, and this in turn could be devastating for the Democrats and Obama.
All of which should be useful examples if one is thinking about policy in the Republican party, the power of the Presidency, and elections in general.
Here is one discussing Republican former Presidential candidate, and candidate for the 2012 race. Specifically it focuses on his somewhat bizarre take on the non-controversial nuclear-weapons-reducing treaty New START. Essentially, according to the article, the Republicans are becoming increasingly "hawkish" about anything which smacks of reducing spending on defense. They also hate President Obama and everything he stands for, so won't give him any sort of political victory even if it's in US and World interests. Obama's policy of reducing nuclear weapons in the US and Russia seems like a good strategy and helps to encourage co-operation on thorny issues like Iran's dash for the nuke (to borrow a UK phrase: "tough on nuclear holocausts, tough on the causes on nuclear holocausts"). Mitt Romney wants to stick it to those pesky Ruskies because that plays well with the Republican base in these uncertain Tea-Party influenced times.
This article here reflects on the problem Obama has with getting anyone to listen to his message about jobs and the recovery, which has an impact on the Democratic result in the mid-terms.
This one delves into some of the races which are a source of worry for Democrats in the mid-terms. One to watch is the battle for Nevada with Senate Majority Leader (Democrat) Harry Reid, which he looks likely to lose, and this in turn could be devastating for the Democrats and Obama.
All of which should be useful examples if one is thinking about policy in the Republican party, the power of the Presidency, and elections in general.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
US tax & the Tea Party
Interesting stuff about America's attitude to its own exceptionalism and greatness here in The Economist's Lexington column. Interesting stuff, especially about the role of government and spending which has a connection to the problems faced by President Obama.
The Onion has a funnier and clearer take on all of this here in an article titled "Nation demands tax dollars only be wasted on stuff which is awesome".
Another Lexington blog has an interesting take on US politics and it's style here (summary: the different sides really DO hate eachother). Yet another Lexington column makes a good point about the Tea Party (vilified by its enemies as a bunch of racists):
Again, we'll see what happens to the Republicans and Democrats and the Tea-Partyers at the mid-terms. If it's any guide, former liberal Republican John McCain has tacked hard to the right to save his seat from a Republican opponent in his Arizona primary, as discussed here and here
The Onion has a funnier and clearer take on all of this here in an article titled "Nation demands tax dollars only be wasted on stuff which is awesome".
Another Lexington blog has an interesting take on US politics and it's style here (summary: the different sides really DO hate eachother). Yet another Lexington column makes a good point about the Tea Party (vilified by its enemies as a bunch of racists):
Though I don't share their politics, tea-partiers are mostly decent folk legitimately alarmed by what is happening to the economy and therefore to their own lives. Here in Arizona that includes a sudden collapse in the value of their homes in a state that has gone through a grotesque property-fuelled boom and bust.
Again, we'll see what happens to the Republicans and Democrats and the Tea-Partyers at the mid-terms. If it's any guide, former liberal Republican John McCain has tacked hard to the right to save his seat from a Republican opponent in his Arizona primary, as discussed here and here
Obama's popularity, Immigration and the Supreme Court
Surprising for casual observers of US politics is the news that President Obama's approval has fallen to a very low level, which is surely worrying for his administration as they come closer to the mid-terms in November (rating graph courtesy of Gallop):
It is in stark contrast to Obama's success at getting health-care reform bills through Congress earlier in the year, and his success at passing reform of the US banking system.
I think another graph from Gallop is instructive here:
While support from Republicans has remained low, his support among independents has fallen, as has his support among Democrat supporters. Information from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in June unemployment was 9.5% at 14.6m. Further discussion of the US economic situation cane be found here and here. A graph which summarises the key problem is here:
Ultimately Obama is paying the price for a sluggish recovery in the US after a very nasty recession despite all the money which has been spent by his government and others in preventing a depression. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating Presidential power and its limits; people are worried about the price which future generations will have to pay for health-care refom, banking reform and the credit crunch.
Immigration reform is on the agenda; good stuff here from the Economist's Lexington column. Essentially while there should be reform along the lines President Obama proposed in a recent speech, he is playing to the gallery hoping to pick up support in time for the mid-terms.
And on another note, while Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan is being probed by Congress, this piece in the Guardian discusses the hearings process. Very useful for anyone contemplating the Supreme Court and it's hearings process in an essay. To quote the final paragraph of the article:
It is in stark contrast to Obama's success at getting health-care reform bills through Congress earlier in the year, and his success at passing reform of the US banking system.
I think another graph from Gallop is instructive here:
While support from Republicans has remained low, his support among independents has fallen, as has his support among Democrat supporters. Information from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in June unemployment was 9.5% at 14.6m. Further discussion of the US economic situation cane be found here and here. A graph which summarises the key problem is here:
Ultimately Obama is paying the price for a sluggish recovery in the US after a very nasty recession despite all the money which has been spent by his government and others in preventing a depression. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating Presidential power and its limits; people are worried about the price which future generations will have to pay for health-care refom, banking reform and the credit crunch.
Immigration reform is on the agenda; good stuff here from the Economist's Lexington column. Essentially while there should be reform along the lines President Obama proposed in a recent speech, he is playing to the gallery hoping to pick up support in time for the mid-terms.
And on another note, while Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan is being probed by Congress, this piece in the Guardian discusses the hearings process. Very useful for anyone contemplating the Supreme Court and it's hearings process in an essay. To quote the final paragraph of the article:
... Kagan's criticism of the process will yet remain. It was vapid, pointless and did little to illuminate anything about the nominee, while doing a lot to illuminate the already well-known political biases of the Senators doing the questioning.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Obama and healthcare reform - opinions
There were extraordinary scenes when Obama finally succeeded in getting his health-care reform bill through Congress on 21st March this year, and subsequently signed it into law; a major plank of his domestic agenda had successfully been implemented. The vote itself was interesting; as previously noted, the final vote in the House was 219 to 212 – Republicans voting against along party lines, with 34 Democrats voting against too. In the Senate the previous Christmas Eve the vote went 60-39, with Democrats and Independents voting for and Republicans voting against.
All of which demonstrates very clearly how party discipline is a funny thing – on this issue it is strong for the Republicans, but weak for the Democrats in the House. Possibly, it also shows how divided Americans as a whole are about health-care. This is the major issue which is exciting the Tea Party movement. It may just reflect how worried some Democrats in the House are about their chances in the mid-terms in November.
Useful stuff for any question about Congress, party discipline, Presidential power and the like.
In terms of the points of view, two opinions are striking – that of the Democrats who argue that it is only a thorough reform of the health-care system by government that the poor and uninsured will be covered. For Republicans, health-care reform is too expensive and smacks of socialist government (although the latter is possibly a rather extreme casting of the policy).
A useful summary of the two view points here in the Guardian, which characterises the vote as a “monumental achievement”:
More about the opinions of the two main parties soon.
All of which demonstrates very clearly how party discipline is a funny thing – on this issue it is strong for the Republicans, but weak for the Democrats in the House. Possibly, it also shows how divided Americans as a whole are about health-care. This is the major issue which is exciting the Tea Party movement. It may just reflect how worried some Democrats in the House are about their chances in the mid-terms in November.
Useful stuff for any question about Congress, party discipline, Presidential power and the like.
In terms of the points of view, two opinions are striking – that of the Democrats who argue that it is only a thorough reform of the health-care system by government that the poor and uninsured will be covered. For Republicans, health-care reform is too expensive and smacks of socialist government (although the latter is possibly a rather extreme casting of the policy).
A useful summary of the two view points here in the Guardian, which characterises the vote as a “monumental achievement”:
… at its heart the story is about the tension in American society between the individual and the community – whether we are just a loose confederation of individuals who should be left alone to pursue self interest, or something more than that, a community of citizens with mutual ties and obligations.
More about the opinions of the two main parties soon.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Supreme Court Justice Retirement
A few days ago, news broke that Supreme Court Justice Stevens was to retire at the age of 90.
More on the implications of this can be found at the articles above and here - a blog about the Supreme Court written from a neutral perspective by lawyers.
For G&P students, this is all useful stuff for the Supreme Court section of the course - both in terms of the impact this significant change may (or may not) have on the rulings of the court, but also for President Obama's power and influence given his success with the health-care bill. Will he be able to carry the Senate in getting through his chosen candidate, especially given the November mid-terms and the likelihood that they will become a referendum on the reform of health?
More on health-care soon.
More on the implications of this can be found at the articles above and here - a blog about the Supreme Court written from a neutral perspective by lawyers.
For G&P students, this is all useful stuff for the Supreme Court section of the course - both in terms of the impact this significant change may (or may not) have on the rulings of the court, but also for President Obama's power and influence given his success with the health-care bill. Will he be able to carry the Senate in getting through his chosen candidate, especially given the November mid-terms and the likelihood that they will become a referendum on the reform of health?
More on health-care soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)