Link for 4/29

The article I found was about Senator Specter of Pennsylvania's switch from the Republican to Democratic party. The article says that Pennsylvania democrats are not entirely happy about this. it will be interesting to see which way Pennsylvania votes in the next congressional elections, if Specter's party switch has a real influence on the state's citizens

In his article “Lie Down for America”, Thomas Frank says that the Republicans have created a ‘dominant political coalition” by attracting working-class white voters with “cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion. Frank basically asserts that Republicans in the Great Plains and other poor regions have been supporting the “wrong” party. Frank describes the Democrats as “the party of the workers, of the poor, of the weak and victimized” and for this reason, it seems likely that a very poor region would vote Democrat. This is not the case, as in Frank’s Great Plains example, a 75% majority voted for Bush. Frank claims that it is the self-denying voters of the country’s poor regions that allowed the Republican party to essentially control government in previous years. Whatever reason these low-income republicans have for their support of the party, Frank believes that they are denying their own interests. Perhaps the reason for Kansas’ overwhelming Republican support is the bumper sticker example in the article: “A Working Person that supports Democrats is like a chicken that supports Col. Sanders”. People in the Great Plains and other regions just may not want to identify as Democrats, even if their policies may be more beneficial. According to Frank, this form of conservatism is based more on moral principles than the Republican parties’ economic policy. Frank describes this is “The Great Backlash”- the backlash “imagines itself as a foe of the elite, the voice of the unfairly persecute, and places much more emphasis on conservative culture than economics. Black claims that the state of Kansas has been particularly ill-served by the economic policies of the Reagan and Bush regimes. Discontent has not caused people to embrace Democratic economic policies, but instead has pushed them further to the right as they choose to instead concentrate on conservative cultural values.

Bartels aggress with Frank on the fact that white voters without college degrees have been significantly less democratic, but claims that the shift to the Republican coalition was very different from Frank’s explanation. Bartels says the shift occurred almost entirely in the South, where Democratic support was artificially inflated for a long period of time. Bartels also disagrees with the statement that ‘culture outweighs economics” among Frank’s group of working-class white voters. Bartels also identifies the fact that most of Frank’s group of working-class white voters describe themselves as closer to Democrats on social issues. Bartels says there is no evidence to suggest that economic issues have diminished in electoral significance over the past 20 years. Additionally, though the political significance of social issues has increased, it has increased less among Frank’s working-class less-educated group than among whites with college degrees. These working class voters describe themselves as more Republican on economic issues, and more Democratic on social issues.

I would have to say that I agree with Frank’s argument. I can see the argument that working-class white voters often vote Republican for moral/cultural issues rather than for the party’s economic policies. This is illustrated in the Republican ideals like gun control, emphasis on religious values and anti-abortion. Though these cultural ideals are obviously not the same for every Republican, they Republicans have succeeded at capturing a support base (working class southern whites) who may benefit more under Democratic economic policies. Even though the Republican coalition has been significantly weakened after 2004, Republicans still took most of the South in the 2008 campaign. Additionally, 2008 was a rather unique year with Obama and Hillary competing against each other, but no strong elite-backed Republican candidate. Discontent over the war in Iraq and Republican economic policy grew, but for the most part the South still voted Republican, including overwhelmingly in Kansas.

Link for 4/22

This article from TIMEis about Obama's rather unclear stance on prosecuting those accused of wartime torture. He has told CIA employees that he doesn't support prosecuting them for harsh interrogatory practices, but has also left open the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for drafting the legal documents supporting these torture practices. Guess we will have to wait and see if he is actually willing to prosecute anyone.

New Party

Assuming that the Republican Party collapsed, there would obviously be a void on the conservative or right side of the political spectrum. Given that there is a large support base for this type of party, I think it would only make sense to try and capture this with my new party. However, I would try to design an even bigger “tent” party than the Republican support base, to appeal to the average or ‘median’ voter. As small parties with specific policy positions have little chance for influence in the U.S. political system, I would try to keep my party away from extreme ideologies. The political platform would focus on more general issues that greater numbers of people would want to support. I would focus on national security and emphasize responsible government spending and tax cuts. Additionally, I would emphasize more current issues, such as renewable energy and environmental protection. The party ideology would emphasize and support free markets/business, but would also focus on providing social protections and services (unemployment and welfare services, social security, etc.)
I would still emphasize a religious base, but would try not to design the party ideology around moral principles. Thus, my party would not have a strong stance on issues such as gay marriage, which can cause a lot of divisions and lost support for the party. With a more open and widespread platform than the two major parties in the U.S., I would try and compete for the swing voters, and even bring Democrats over to my new party. The idea would be to paint the Democrats as too far left, so the new party would be the choice of the “average” American. Thus, the party’s base could cover most of the southern states, but I would also target the more divided states, such as Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Montana.
Party leaders would be chosen and assigned based on their performance and loyalty to the party program. Members who stray from the party will not be granted incentives (campaign funds, leadership assignments). Incumbency would not guarantee leadership positions. The party in government would include younger members as well as minorities, something the Republicans clearly lacked in the 2008 election. This would obviously be a more moderate party with a moderate voting bloc, leaving out the extreme sides of the spectrum. I think an even broader party could have a place in the U.S. It may not be best for conditions of democracy, but these types of parties have worked in other countries, especially with proportional representation voting systems. A party smaller than either the democrats or republicans doesn’t seem that it would go very far to me, just because of the large numbers of potential supporters that they may exclude.

Link 4/8

Little bit of conspiracy theorism in this article, it's basically about the involvement of several of President Obama's appointed administration in the "Bilderberg Group". This is basically an elite group of extremely rich or powerful people from around the world, and according to the theory, Obama is simply a puppet in their goal of creating a worldwide government- the "new world order." Theories..

GOP In Trouble?

I would argue that although the Republican Party has recently been going through some turmoil, they will definitely not be reduced to a regional party “unable to compete for the presidency or congressional majorities”. The Republican Party is already firmly established throughout the nation, and although there are regional differences among party supporters, there is no clear prospect for a regional coalition. It is a mass party, and I really don’t see a new conservative/right wing party being created to completely replace the GOP. Rather, I think they need to restructure or adapt to the current political landscape. Really, there are supporters of each party in every state, as well as a sizable number of independents or leaners who could possibly be won over. I would argue that this is just a political cycle similar to what the Democrats faced in 1994 and 2002. Specifically, I think the Democratic congressional upset in 2006 was largely a reaction to the George W. Bush’s presidency and his policies on the war in Iraq, etc. A sizable number of citizens wanted a change of direction from Bush’s course, so they “threw the bums out” (in this case, voted in Democrats) the first chance they got. This feeling just continued to grow until the 2008 elections, when Obama ran on a promise of change from Bush’s presidency and the Republican party in general. I think this discontent is cyclical in nature, as the people simply switch their support to the other mass party if they don’t like the way the government is going. Although part of a political cycle, I think the Republicans failed to unify during the 2008 election. They had basically tried to remove any association with Bush to the party, and we even saw some key Republicans voice their support for the Democrats. And although the GOP seemed to prefer Fred Thompson as their candidate, he was unable to really go anywhere, and so the Republicans were left with a group of candidates who weren’t exactly ideal for holding a broad coalition that they desired. I think if McCain would have won, he would seem to be the “leader” of the Republicans. However we know that’s not the case, and the Republicans do seem to currently lack a clear leader. Michael Steele is the chairman of the National Committee, but his name is relatively new to most and I don’t think he is seen as the leader of the party by any means. Which is probably why there has been recent chattering over Rush Limbaugh possibly being the “leader” of the party, most likely to the enjoyment of Democrats. Although the economic crisis may have taken some of the spotlight off the problems of the GOP, I think the party will continue to try and improve its strength. They are not going to simply let the Republican coalition in Congress fall apart to let Obama pass whatever he wants. To do this however, I think they could use some restructuring, possibly similar to what Van Buren did for Jackson and the Republicans. With some restructuring to create a stronger leadership and stronger local parties to increase voter mobilization, the GOP could possibly see more success. Alternatively, if Obama’s policies don’t produce results, many people could decide they are sick of the Democratic government and simply continue the political cycle. Either way, it seems clear to me that the Republicans need to do some restructuring and possibly adapt to some of the more current popular issues.

4/1 Link

Here's a link from TIME regarding the beginning of the Clean Energy Act going through Congress. I hadn't read too much about the specific plans to regulate and cut down on greenhouse gases. The price tag of the project was a little surprising, and I'm sure will worry people in the current economic state.

4/1 Blog Post: Electoral Mandates

To answer the question of whether Barack Obama had and still holds an electoral mandate, there first needs to be a definition. Broadly, an electoral mandate refers to widespread support from the voting population for a candidate’s policy proposals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama’s position within the Democratic party seemed to be a bipartisan strategy. It was suggested that Obama could be successful at bridging the gap between the parties, therefore creating cooperation among the major parties. On a broader level, especially later in the campaign, Obama emphasized his position of Change from the Bush administration and the way the U.S. was run for the past 8 years. The campaign was basically suggesting that a vote for McCain would be a vote for a continuation of the Bush presidency. Once the economic situation worsened towards the end of the race, this message of change seemed to really pick up, as I think a lot of observers felt that Bush’s economic policies weren’t working that well, and voting for McCain would keep a similar approach to the economy in place. Voters were aware of Obama’s plan for a stimulus package to create jobs, so they knew what they were voting for in that sense. Now, determining whether someone has an electoral mandate to implement their agenda is not a straightforward process. However, after looking at the 2008 presidential election results I would conclude that Obama did hold an electoral mandate. I would conclude this because of the fact that he won a popular majority among voters with 53%, and also won in the electoral college by a wide margin with 365 votes compared to McCain’s 173. Although Obama’s win in the popular vote was not quite as large, some of his support could have possibly been unrepresented, since Republicans and those from a higher socioeconomic status are more likely to vote. However, he still held the popular majority, so I would conclude that Obama did hold an electoral mandate. Obama also had a lot of support from the public as he first took office. This poll by CNNsays that when Obama first took office, 76% of respondents said he was a "strong and decisive leader", the highest for any President since Reagan. This seems to be a good accomplishment, as we have seen polarization among the parties and public increase since the Reagan era. However, Obama is still very early in his Presidency, and the policies he's enacted so far (stimulus package) have not stood the test of time. I also think the economic situation has gotten worse than expected, so some of the President's other plans have possibly been placed on the backburner for now. This could be important, because I would think Obama would want to push through as much legislation as he can while he still has high approval ratings and a unified majority in Congress. When examining Obama's approval ratings since January 09, you can see that 44% of respondents strongly approved of his job performance. By April 1, 37% strongly approve. In January, 65% total approved of his performance, compared to 57% as of April 1. This suggests that while Obama has lost some support, the majority of the public still approves of his performance as President. This fact, along with his unified Congressional majority, causes me to conclude that Obama still holds an electoral mandate. However, I think he could lose this mandate if his stimulus package proves unsuccessful or if the economy just doesn't turn around quick enough. If his majority in Congress receives too much pressure from their constituents, you could see some members back away from Obama's congressional majority, which could eventually dissolve his electoral mandate.