Mid-terms 2014

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.

Republicans, Tea-Party-ers and Kansas

A quick post - any G and P student contemplating the Tea Party and the Republicans as they head towards probable success in the mid-terms, and then onto the 2016 Presidential-race, should take a look at this piece in Rolling Stone Magazine.

It's a fascinating look at the race for Governor in Kansas, where the incumbent Republican, a Tea-Party-supporting Sam Brownback is presiding over what he has described as an economic "experiment". The short version is that he has enacted most of what the Tea-Party has demanded; no compromise, low-taxes and low-spending.

The result? To quote the Washington Post:

 the state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Interestingly, prominent Republicans in the state seem not to like this, and are jumping ship.

All of which is fascinating for politics students contemplating the Republican Party and politics in the USA as a whole. And probably much less fun for the people of Kansas, sadly.

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)

The Tea Party and Republicanism 2010

According to this piece on the political blog The Hill, the primary voting season has shown the power of Sarah Palin, the Tea-Party's first lady and former governor of Alaska, on the political scene. Specifically candidates who she has supported in the run-up to the November mid-terms have been successful, and notably more right-wing than the candidates they beat.

The ins-and-outs of this won't be especially useful for G&P students, except that it'll be interesting to note what happens in November, especially if Obama supporters stay away from the polls.

Of note for anyone contemplating the direction of the Republican party is the news that former political renegade and maverick John McCain kept his seat in Alaska because he supported positions more right-wing, especially on immigration, than he has previously.

Another interesting development is that because of the generally anti-politician feeling in the states, there are politicians attempting to be different. Marco Rubio, a Republican Senate seat nominee is doing this by avoiding the Tea Party and having an actual set of policies he would like to put into practice when in office. The comment by the Economist's Democracy in America blog is pretty scathing about his policies for which the numbers don't add up:

It's true that advancing policy proposals is more courageous than running on facile outrage: having an agenda courts the risk that people will take your agenda apart. Nonetheless, I don't find it convincing to praise Mr Rubio simply for having put forward an agenda. The problem remains that Mr Rubio suffers from a fundamental malady that afflicts the entire tea-party movement. Tea-partiers who believe that the federal government must dramatically cut its budget deficit remain resolutely unwilling to draw the inevitable conclusion: either taxes must go dramatically up, or major, popular federal programmes (defence, Social Security, Medicare) must be dramatically cut. One thing we should have learned from the 2000 elections, and the budgetary debacles that have followed, is that an unwillingness to make the numbers in your proposals add up is a character flaw of the first order.

The other way is being the non-politician's politician and telling anyone who'd listen that you will not doing negative campaigning (i.e. attacking the character and policies of your opponent). For an example of the genre, take a look at the ad by Colorado Democratic-governor candidate John Hickenlooper:



As a rejoinder to that, here is a piece by CBS news about negative campaigning from John McCain in the 2008 presidential race:



All of which is useful stuff for anyone contemplating the impact of pressure groups on parties (or even of factions within parties), elections, and the policies of the Republican party.

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:

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.

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.

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):

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:

... 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.

Republicans and the Tea Party

As noted in a previous post, the Tea Party movement is having an effect on Republican nominees and their policies; they are lurching to the right. Specifically Meg Whitman the billionaire former boss of eBay has become the GOP nominee for the governor's race in California, and the multi-millionaire former boss of HP Carly Fiorina has become the GOP nominee for the California Senate seat.

In addition, the Nevada Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, is the Tea Party movement's favourite, and defeated the moderate candidate to be the challenger for the seat belonging to Harry Reid, the incumbent Democrat and Senate majority leader. As noted in this article here (one which also briefly covers a successful Democrat in Arkansas) the Sharron Angle is the Obama team's favoured Republican candidate too as it will make Harry Reid's chance of keeping his seat higher:

Ms Angle’s controversial policies include privatising Social Security (pensions) and closing the federal departments of energy and education, among others.

.

The key problem, as noted here in the "Democracy in America" blog is that they have moved to the right to avoid being outflanked by other candidates in the race and to get the support from the Tea Party movement types of the Republican party. California is generally a "Blue" state, and is more liberal than most places in the US. It'll be interesting to see how they fare in this year's mid-terms, and particularly whether they can move back to the middle to get the independent voters and at the same time avoid being called a "Republican in Name Only" or RINO.

In other US-related news, Congress is likely yet again not to be able to pass a bill to take action on climate change. Scathing stuff from another post from Democracy in America, especially since over two-thirds of US citizens support action (although they don't want to increase taxes, just spending). In other analysis here, Senator Graham who originally helped write the bill he is now objecting to is now saying that there is not enough provision for further off-shore drilling (of the kind which is spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico).

More significantly for G&P students is the analysis of the Grist article linked to above which says that the Republican party has moved away from anything which smacks of limiting big-business (actually they say it much less kindly than that). In their analysis and in the this article here Senator Graham has been trying to find a way out of supporting the bill, and has finally found it.

Whether the Republican party and the actions of politicians will continue to be driven by the Tea Party movement away from anything resembling the centre ground will be interesting to see, especially in the impact on the mid-terms in November.

It is also a useful illustration of how Congress does (or doesn't) work as a key part of the legislative process. A bi-partisan approach to some of the key issues in American politics today (health-care reform, climate change) is just not possible it would seem.

Obama, banks and Republicans

Fascinating stuff related to President Obama's reform of the banking system; a long but very worthwhile article by New York Magazine about the relationship between Obama, the banks and the Republican party. Paul Krugman in the New York Times has a very much shorter article about the same subject here. The Democracy in America column in the Economist covers both articles here.

In essence, the Obama administration prevented the collapse of the global banking system in 2008-9 by bailing them out to the tune of billions of dollars through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The administration resisted calls for radical change from the left, and have proposed changes which are significant, in that it is designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 experience, but not revolutionary. This has annoyed large numbers of the American people who are bitter because of massive unemployment and a weak recovery, and has also annoyed the banks who wanted to return to business as usual.

After supporting candidate Obama in the 2008 election to the tune of millions of dollars, they have turned to support the Republicans again, to the tune of millions. To quote Krugman:

So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.

These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration.

This is a problem for the GOP because Obama's reforms will be supported by a large number of Americans because the new law will be seen as punishing the banks for their past misdemeanours. The Republicans have a problem because they are traditionally in favour of big business not being stymied by too much government oversight, and are being tarred as being in the pockets of the big banks.

This is why the party discipline that was so much in evidence on the right over Obamacare, and which narrowly came to bring the administration's momentum to a halt at the end of last year, has wilted under the pressure. Populist movements are "anti-socialist" medicine and anti-bank. The GOP has a problem as the November mid-terms, and the 2012-race approach.

I'll quote the last paragraph of the NY magazine article:

...Wall Street, too, is engaged in some seriously perilous (and mildly deranged) thinking, which reflects not just its political naïveté but its all-distorting insularity from … reality. The populism now stirring in America is bipartisan, ecumenical. No politician of any stripe can afford to ignore it. The Republicans running in 2012 will be contending with or catering to it, too; they’re unlikely to offer Wall Street any safer harbor than Obama has. Yet the best barricade against the pitchfork platoons is an improving economy. And if it comes, not only will Obama stand a good chance of reelection, Wall Street’s amnesia may well kick in—just in time to fall in love all over again.

In Krugman's analysis there is also a problem for the Democrats in November too; populist sentiment against them thanks to health-care reform, balanced against the left's annoyance that a revolutionary change in Wall Street hasn't happened. In his analysis Obama has to occupy the middle ground between Wall Street and populist reformers. Fascinating stuff as the mid-term elections approach.

Useful background for anyone contemplating decline or renewal of parties (both are being buffeted by the populist left and right, which are in fact the "base" of both parties, and this has an effect on the policies of both), party discipline in health-care reform and bank reform votes, and in Presidential power.