Wow, end of semester already! I can't believe I graduate on Sunday -- the year went so fast.
Anyway, I loved the blog project. I think it gave us a great opportunity to really engage the material in a way we couldn't do with reading responses or term papers. We were able to use the readings in a timely fashion, relating them to current events -- especially the 2008 election. I think this method makes the most sense for an online course, as well. It allowed us to interact with our classmates and, through that, we got to see how other people interpreted the material and how they related it to current events. This is not something we could've done with term papers or even the discussion boards. The blog posts let us really flesh out our ideas, on our own personal space, which made learning and remembering the material much easier.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Group Project
Like most groups, we created the Franklinism party as a replacement for the failing Republican party. Our basic premise was to stray from the super Christian-conservatism ideals of the old Republican party and instead focus on a moderate viewpoint. Our platform consisted of traditionally Republican ideals such as small government, fiscal conservatism, and a focus on the individual, but we also added some progressive elements, such as environmentalism/the green movement, and scientific and medical progress. Our base included people from across the political spectrum, ranging from Lieberman to Duncan, and some "blue dogs."
I think our biggest strength was our moderate/progressive platform. A lot of people are concerned with global warming and "going green" -- it seems like an issue that will stick with the American people, especially with our targeted youth and environmental base. And since the green movement is being hailed as the next great job market, I think that Americans will really embrace these policies. We also included scientific progress, specifically mentioning research for heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and continuing research into stem cells. This, specifically, should appeal to older Americans, and to those who noted President Bush's efforts with HIV/AIDS program in Africa.
I think our weakest point was our huge base. The problem with grouping all these different ideologies into one party is that there'll be vast disagreements, particularly involving controversial ideas such as stem cell research. I think we could've spent more time analyzing why we chose each person we mentioned, and ensuring that their ideologies would mesh with the party's. We also didn't have a strong plan of action. We stated that we'd be a strong contender within 10-15 years, but we didn't really mention how that would come about. I was struck by group 1's plan, which involved a grassroots organization similar to the one that helped Obama's campaign. I think slowly building credibility through the community is the best way to gain enough popularity to run a decent campaign.
While looking at the other group projects, I was struck more by the similarities among them than the differences. Most groups, if not all, projected the downfall of the Republican party, but included the basic Republican ideals into their platforms. Most included small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and individual choice/liberties. Some included an environmental element like we did, while others pushed for gay marriage or illegal immigration reform. I think group 4, with the Foundations Party, did a remarkably thorough job of explaining their platform and key members, and I was really struck by their idea of using outsiders -- leaders from non profits and the business community -- instead of mainstream politicians. While I don't know how well this would work realistically, I love the idea of it.
I think our biggest strength was our moderate/progressive platform. A lot of people are concerned with global warming and "going green" -- it seems like an issue that will stick with the American people, especially with our targeted youth and environmental base. And since the green movement is being hailed as the next great job market, I think that Americans will really embrace these policies. We also included scientific progress, specifically mentioning research for heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and continuing research into stem cells. This, specifically, should appeal to older Americans, and to those who noted President Bush's efforts with HIV/AIDS program in Africa.
I think our weakest point was our huge base. The problem with grouping all these different ideologies into one party is that there'll be vast disagreements, particularly involving controversial ideas such as stem cell research. I think we could've spent more time analyzing why we chose each person we mentioned, and ensuring that their ideologies would mesh with the party's. We also didn't have a strong plan of action. We stated that we'd be a strong contender within 10-15 years, but we didn't really mention how that would come about. I was struck by group 1's plan, which involved a grassroots organization similar to the one that helped Obama's campaign. I think slowly building credibility through the community is the best way to gain enough popularity to run a decent campaign.
While looking at the other group projects, I was struck more by the similarities among them than the differences. Most groups, if not all, projected the downfall of the Republican party, but included the basic Republican ideals into their platforms. Most included small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and individual choice/liberties. Some included an environmental element like we did, while others pushed for gay marriage or illegal immigration reform. I think group 4, with the Foundations Party, did a remarkably thorough job of explaining their platform and key members, and I was really struck by their idea of using outsiders -- leaders from non profits and the business community -- instead of mainstream politicians. While I don't know how well this would work realistically, I love the idea of it.
I think our group suffered the same problems that come with group projects. Invariably, one person will take it upon himself to do all the work, while the rest of the group wonders how they'll contribute when all the work's already done. I think it would've been helpful to require an outline, before even starting the project, stating exactly what each person would contribute. This way, no one person can jump in and do all the work, leaving the rest with little to do. Also, I think using programs like campfire would allow everyone to be in the same place at the same time, allowing each person to join in the conversation. It's really easy to forget to check the d2l board, but it's not easy to miss a scheduled group meeting.
The use of email, message boards, and chat programs is really the wave of the future, and it's something we're going to see more of between politicians. It's much more convenient than trying to get together in person, and with the right programs, it's almost identical. I think the challenges will lie in allowing each individual the time and opportunity to contribute ideas and opinions, and I think that regularly scheduled meetings, through video and voice chat, will alleviate this challenge.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Joe the Lieberman
Is Joe Lieberman a Democrat?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: it's complicated. Lieberman has run with the Democratic party for the past 20 years as a Senator, a vice-presidential candidate, and a presidential candidate. According to his biography on his web site, "He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)." Since his flagrant endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Democrats have wondered where his true loyalties lie. If he was a Democrat, even an Independent Democrat, how could he justify campaigning for McCain? Regardless, since Lieberman considers himself a Democrat, and since a brief look at his voting record shows that he does vote in agreement with the Democrats (see voting record here), he is a Democrat, albeit an Independent one.
What should Senate Democrats do with him?
Even though I'm posting this after the caucus results, I'll admit that I do agree with their decision, but only because of the current Senate situation. As of today, the Senate Democrats have a Senate majority -- 58 seats -- only 2 short of the "magic 60" filibuster-proof majority. And, as such, every single seat counts. This article does an excellent job explaining why the Democrats voted as they did. A large part of it rested on Obama's appeal to the Senate Democrats to retain Lieberman's posts. But as the article states, "...Obama wasn't just acting out of bipartisan goodwill. In supporting Lieberman's continued inclusion in the caucus, Obama may have effectively defanged his toughest potential opponent in the Senate Democratic caucus. If Lieberman is anything, as he proved with McCain, he's loyal — and now he owes Obama a big one. For the first time in his long political career, his job over the next few years is to keep quiet." In short, the Democrats need him, and his Democratic leanings, to help pass each of Obama's planned legislation. And as this article demonstrates (when you get past the writer's obvious ant-Lieberman bias), Lieberman's single vote has proven crucial for much legislation. "Instead, I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31, 2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote."
Lieberman, as a member of the party-in-government, owes his party his loyalty and his vote. Since he clearly abdicated his loyalty when he formally supported John McCain, he *must* vote with the Democrats in the Senate. As stated in Aldrich, page 23, "The parties-in-government are more than mere coalitions of like-minded individuals, however; they are enduring institutions...in the language of politics, parties may help achieve the goal of attaining policy majorities in the first place, as well as the often more difficult goal of maintaining such majorities." And, on page 195, "Legislation requires the formation of majorities on the floor in each chamber...political parties are one basis on which majorities can be formed, and they can provide long-term stability to such a majority. But these too can be defeated and majorities fashioned on other bases..." Clearly, the Democrats need to hold on to their majority in the Senate, because majorities are so difficult to form. Punishing Leiberman would've upset the majority balance, which would've proven detrimental in the long run.
I think the Senate Democrats, though many of them are still angry about letting Lieberman off with a mere 'slap on the wrist,' they'll not regret their decision in the long run.
When asked if he felt reprimanded, chagrined or punished, Lieberman responded with unwavering support for his fellow Democrats. "This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," said Lieberman, while admitting that he had uttered certain statements on the trail that he now regretted.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: it's complicated. Lieberman has run with the Democratic party for the past 20 years as a Senator, a vice-presidential candidate, and a presidential candidate. According to his biography on his web site, "He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)." Since his flagrant endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Democrats have wondered where his true loyalties lie. If he was a Democrat, even an Independent Democrat, how could he justify campaigning for McCain? Regardless, since Lieberman considers himself a Democrat, and since a brief look at his voting record shows that he does vote in agreement with the Democrats (see voting record here), he is a Democrat, albeit an Independent one.
What should Senate Democrats do with him?
Even though I'm posting this after the caucus results, I'll admit that I do agree with their decision, but only because of the current Senate situation. As of today, the Senate Democrats have a Senate majority -- 58 seats -- only 2 short of the "magic 60" filibuster-proof majority. And, as such, every single seat counts. This article does an excellent job explaining why the Democrats voted as they did. A large part of it rested on Obama's appeal to the Senate Democrats to retain Lieberman's posts. But as the article states, "...Obama wasn't just acting out of bipartisan goodwill. In supporting Lieberman's continued inclusion in the caucus, Obama may have effectively defanged his toughest potential opponent in the Senate Democratic caucus. If Lieberman is anything, as he proved with McCain, he's loyal — and now he owes Obama a big one. For the first time in his long political career, his job over the next few years is to keep quiet." In short, the Democrats need him, and his Democratic leanings, to help pass each of Obama's planned legislation. And as this article demonstrates (when you get past the writer's obvious ant-Lieberman bias), Lieberman's single vote has proven crucial for much legislation. "Instead, I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31, 2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote."
Lieberman, as a member of the party-in-government, owes his party his loyalty and his vote. Since he clearly abdicated his loyalty when he formally supported John McCain, he *must* vote with the Democrats in the Senate. As stated in Aldrich, page 23, "The parties-in-government are more than mere coalitions of like-minded individuals, however; they are enduring institutions...in the language of politics, parties may help achieve the goal of attaining policy majorities in the first place, as well as the often more difficult goal of maintaining such majorities." And, on page 195, "Legislation requires the formation of majorities on the floor in each chamber...political parties are one basis on which majorities can be formed, and they can provide long-term stability to such a majority. But these too can be defeated and majorities fashioned on other bases..." Clearly, the Democrats need to hold on to their majority in the Senate, because majorities are so difficult to form. Punishing Leiberman would've upset the majority balance, which would've proven detrimental in the long run.
I think the Senate Democrats, though many of them are still angry about letting Lieberman off with a mere 'slap on the wrist,' they'll not regret their decision in the long run.
When asked if he felt reprimanded, chagrined or punished, Lieberman responded with unwavering support for his fellow Democrats. "This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," said Lieberman, while admitting that he had uttered certain statements on the trail that he now regretted.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Can they recover?
Sure, it might seem at first glance that the Republican party is on its way out. Not only have they lost control of the House and Senate, they also lost by a landslide to a fairly liberal Democrat, and their former leader has the worst approval rating ever, even lower than Richard Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. Is there hope for the future of the GOP? Definitely, according to the history books.
To determine the future of any given political party, it helps to look at the history of party formation in this country. Even though the founding fathers denounced political parties, worrying that they would actually detract from the major issues, party formation was an inevitability. It became obvious that there needed to be opposing forces in government to resist tyranny. And since America has become a two-party system, with third parties trailing very far behind, there will always be a Democratic party and a Republican party. Political leaders began organizing supporters issue-by-issue, acknowledging that "they stood to benefit the most from organizing, and they surely recognized that they had the most to lose by failing to organize." (Aldrich 78) And I think herein lies the strategy for a Republican comeback.
Now we have to shed the historical context and look closely at the present situation. When looking at the reasons why Obama won, most point to his huge grassroots campaign. Even before Obama formally announced that he would run for president, a widespread, organized grassroots effort had begun, encouraging Obama to run in the first place. After he announced his candidacy, the effort spread even farther, effectively utilizing technology (via Facebook, text messaging etc.) to spread the word. McCain's campaign, and the whole Republican party in general, lacked this essential level of organization. In order to compete in future races, the Republican party will need to reach voters as effectively as Obama has. And they'll need to utilize the internet to the same extent. Right now, Obama's revolutionizing the way the people interact with their government, particularly through his website change.gov. And it doesn't stop there. This article does a great job of explaining just how much of an impact using technology will have on government.
The Republican party has a lot of work ahead of it. Over the next couple years, it will need to ascertain its core beliefs, rally its supporters, and embrace technology the same way the Democrats have. It'll be an uphill struggle, but the GOP is nothing if not determined.
To determine the future of any given political party, it helps to look at the history of party formation in this country. Even though the founding fathers denounced political parties, worrying that they would actually detract from the major issues, party formation was an inevitability. It became obvious that there needed to be opposing forces in government to resist tyranny. And since America has become a two-party system, with third parties trailing very far behind, there will always be a Democratic party and a Republican party. Political leaders began organizing supporters issue-by-issue, acknowledging that "they stood to benefit the most from organizing, and they surely recognized that they had the most to lose by failing to organize." (Aldrich 78) And I think herein lies the strategy for a Republican comeback.
Now we have to shed the historical context and look closely at the present situation. When looking at the reasons why Obama won, most point to his huge grassroots campaign. Even before Obama formally announced that he would run for president, a widespread, organized grassroots effort had begun, encouraging Obama to run in the first place. After he announced his candidacy, the effort spread even farther, effectively utilizing technology (via Facebook, text messaging etc.) to spread the word. McCain's campaign, and the whole Republican party in general, lacked this essential level of organization. In order to compete in future races, the Republican party will need to reach voters as effectively as Obama has. And they'll need to utilize the internet to the same extent. Right now, Obama's revolutionizing the way the people interact with their government, particularly through his website change.gov. And it doesn't stop there. This article does a great job of explaining just how much of an impact using technology will have on government.
The Republican party has a lot of work ahead of it. Over the next couple years, it will need to ascertain its core beliefs, rally its supporters, and embrace technology the same way the Democrats have. It'll be an uphill struggle, but the GOP is nothing if not determined.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Predictions and Electoral Mandate
First of all, congratulations to President-elect Obama! What an amazing, exciting election! I think this sums it up nicely.
Our group did really well predicting the results of this election. We were correct that Obama would win the presidency, and that the Democrats would maintain their majority in the House and Senate. Most of our state-level predictions were correct, too. We only flubbed on Indiana (which we thought would go Republican), Missouri (which we thought would go Democratic), and North Carolina (which we thought would go Republican). As far as the Senate race, we were only wrong on Maine (we predicted Democrat), North Carolina (we predicted Republican), and Virginia (we predicted Republican).
And does Obama have an electoral mandate? Almost! If I were to judge based solely on his performance last night and the number of electoral votes he received over McCain, I would definitely say yes. And considering the record number of voters that turned out, I think it's pretty clear that America really wants this change. But I'm leaving my answer at "almost" based on the Senate results. Even though the Democrats kept their majority, they did not reach the "magic 60" filibuster-proof majority that they wanted.
Our group did really well predicting the results of this election. We were correct that Obama would win the presidency, and that the Democrats would maintain their majority in the House and Senate. Most of our state-level predictions were correct, too. We only flubbed on Indiana (which we thought would go Republican), Missouri (which we thought would go Democratic), and North Carolina (which we thought would go Republican). As far as the Senate race, we were only wrong on Maine (we predicted Democrat), North Carolina (we predicted Republican), and Virginia (we predicted Republican).
And does Obama have an electoral mandate? Almost! If I were to judge based solely on his performance last night and the number of electoral votes he received over McCain, I would definitely say yes. And considering the record number of voters that turned out, I think it's pretty clear that America really wants this change. But I'm leaving my answer at "almost" based on the Senate results. Even though the Democrats kept their majority, they did not reach the "magic 60" filibuster-proof majority that they wanted.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
McCain's new strategy
"For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky or think this is all set," Obama said at a fundraiser at Manhattan's Metropolitan Club earlier this week, "I just have two words for you: New Hampshire."
Clearly, Obama acknowledges that this race is far from over. Despite the poll numbers in Obama's favor, the fundraising dollars he's acquired , and the fact that he won all three debates, there are still 2 weeks left that could change the course of the race. And with the right strategy, the McCain/Palin ticket could still pull ahead. As the readings explained, the Republicans hold a huge sway over white voters, southern voters (particularly southern women), religious voters, wealthy voters, and rural voters. It's important for McCain to understand this and focus his campaign to these influential groups of people.
To do this, McCain will have to dramatically change his own strategy. Thus far, he's had Palin do most of the dirty work in terms of reaching out to women and religious voters. Note this article, which shows Palin pandering to women voters while backed by former Clinton supporters, and this article transcripting a recent interview between Palin and a Christian leader. Because it's out of the question to replace Palin as his running mate, I think McCain really needs to take some of that responsibility into his own hands. He's spent so much time and energy on vicious attack ads that he hasn't painted a clear picture of his policy views. He needs to scale back the attacks, eliminate the robocalls, and instead hammer into the American people how he will change Washington with crystal clear plans and goals. And he needs to start reaching out to these voters himself, because when people go out to vote, they vote for the top of the ticket -- not the running mate. And if voters are turned off by McCain's constant attacks, I don't think Palin will be enough to sway their vote. Palin should stick to her rallies, which are drawing increasingly large crowds, and stay away from media interviews where she's failed miserably.
Clearly, Obama acknowledges that this race is far from over. Despite the poll numbers in Obama's favor, the fundraising dollars he's acquired , and the fact that he won all three debates, there are still 2 weeks left that could change the course of the race. And with the right strategy, the McCain/Palin ticket could still pull ahead. As the readings explained, the Republicans hold a huge sway over white voters, southern voters (particularly southern women), religious voters, wealthy voters, and rural voters. It's important for McCain to understand this and focus his campaign to these influential groups of people.
To do this, McCain will have to dramatically change his own strategy. Thus far, he's had Palin do most of the dirty work in terms of reaching out to women and religious voters. Note this article, which shows Palin pandering to women voters while backed by former Clinton supporters, and this article transcripting a recent interview between Palin and a Christian leader. Because it's out of the question to replace Palin as his running mate, I think McCain really needs to take some of that responsibility into his own hands. He's spent so much time and energy on vicious attack ads that he hasn't painted a clear picture of his policy views. He needs to scale back the attacks, eliminate the robocalls, and instead hammer into the American people how he will change Washington with crystal clear plans and goals. And he needs to start reaching out to these voters himself, because when people go out to vote, they vote for the top of the ticket -- not the running mate. And if voters are turned off by McCain's constant attacks, I don't think Palin will be enough to sway their vote. Palin should stick to her rallies, which are drawing increasingly large crowds, and stay away from media interviews where she's failed miserably.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Party Identification
Based on the exit polls for 2008, it's safe to state that demographics play a huge roll in party identification, voter turn-out, and which candidate people vote for. It does, in fact, determine voting behavior.
The reading from Hetherington and Keefe details a list of demographics and who certain groups of people are likely to vote for. The text states that "men were seven percentage points more Republican than women, and that women were nine points more Democratic than men," which the text backs up with voter turn-out for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The text also states that "those who attend church at least once a week have become stalwarts of the Republican party; those who attend church less often or not at all are now disproportionally Democratic." The book then says that "nearly 60% of weekly churchgoers who were white identified themselves as Republicans." The readings also state that more educated people tended to vote Republican.
The exit polls:
In terms of gender, the exit polls showed that 58% of males and 42% of females voted Republican while the exact opposite was true of the Democrats. As for church goers, those who said they went to church "occasionally" or "never" voted Democrat (68%) while those who said they go regularly voted Republican. On the Republican exit poll, the issue of abortion came up. Of those who voted, 70% believed that abortion should be illegal -- a staunchly Republican view. On the Democratic poll, the issue of education came up. 58% had no college degree, while 42% were college graduates.
Conclusion:
The results from the 2008 exit polls solidly proves the text book's claims that demographics determine voting behavior, for the most part. Most women DID vote Democratic, most regular church-goers DID vote Republican, and those with a staunch view on abortion voted Republican as well.
The reading from Hetherington and Keefe details a list of demographics and who certain groups of people are likely to vote for. The text states that "men were seven percentage points more Republican than women, and that women were nine points more Democratic than men," which the text backs up with voter turn-out for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The text also states that "those who attend church at least once a week have become stalwarts of the Republican party; those who attend church less often or not at all are now disproportionally Democratic." The book then says that "nearly 60% of weekly churchgoers who were white identified themselves as Republicans." The readings also state that more educated people tended to vote Republican.
The exit polls:
In terms of gender, the exit polls showed that 58% of males and 42% of females voted Republican while the exact opposite was true of the Democrats. As for church goers, those who said they went to church "occasionally" or "never" voted Democrat (68%) while those who said they go regularly voted Republican. On the Republican exit poll, the issue of abortion came up. Of those who voted, 70% believed that abortion should be illegal -- a staunchly Republican view. On the Democratic poll, the issue of education came up. 58% had no college degree, while 42% were college graduates.
Conclusion:
The results from the 2008 exit polls solidly proves the text book's claims that demographics determine voting behavior, for the most part. Most women DID vote Democratic, most regular church-goers DID vote Republican, and those with a staunch view on abortion voted Republican as well.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Congress
I found it surprising how much sway minority parties have in Congress. As explained in Hetherington and Keefe, the role of these minority parties is to "mobilize congressional majorities and shape public policy." When I first heard about the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006, I was excited to hear what changes they'd enact after 12 years of Republican rule. When I failed to see any real action, I wondered why. Was it because the House couldn't come up with groundbreaking new legislature? Was there no media coverage of their decisions? Or did President Bush have something to do with it?
Now, while I don't understand the whole process completely, I think that the fact that Democrats didn't have that wide of a majority over the Republicans made a huge difference. The Republicans were still able to filibuster or in other ways block the House from passing Democratic-backed bills. And even though Democrats hold the majority, not every Democrat will vote with his party 100% of the time. The vote of the moderates can make or break a bill.
As explained in the class video, when a bill is presented to five people on varying places in the political spectrum, it will usually appeal to 2 of those people and not appeal to the other 2 on the opposite side. The majority vote, then, goes to the person square in the middle. The moderate. If he agrees with parts of the bill, it will pass. If he mostly disagrees with it, it will fail. It seems that moderates play a vital role as tiebreaker for the House. The Richert article, "Moderates Come Front and Center,"describes a specific scenario in which the moderates decided the fate of a certain bill. "In 1994, Clinton bet much of his political capital on being able to sell his health care initiative to a solidly Democratic Congress, completely misunderstanding how many moderates in his own party hated his ideas and were willing to join with virtually everyone on the Republican side to bury his ambitions." Certainly, the minorities play a huge role in determining the effectiveness of legislature negotiations.
As for the bailout bill that flew through the Senate but failed in the House, I found a number of explanations for the result. First of all, congressmen seemed reluctant to vote for a bill so unpopular with their districts. During a reelection year, congressmen generally will not vote for a bill that will doom their campaigns in the future. And since the term limit for congressmen is two years versus Senators' six, the Senators had less to lose by passing the bill.
There was also the question of partisanship related to this bill. Right after the bill failed, Minority Leader John Boehner blamed Nancy Pelosi's speech, right before the voting began, for the failing of the bill. He stated, "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house." Whether or not that speech actually made that big of a difference is unknown, but it was amusing to hear Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of Boehner's comment. "We don't believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that's hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Now, while I don't understand the whole process completely, I think that the fact that Democrats didn't have that wide of a majority over the Republicans made a huge difference. The Republicans were still able to filibuster or in other ways block the House from passing Democratic-backed bills. And even though Democrats hold the majority, not every Democrat will vote with his party 100% of the time. The vote of the moderates can make or break a bill.
As explained in the class video, when a bill is presented to five people on varying places in the political spectrum, it will usually appeal to 2 of those people and not appeal to the other 2 on the opposite side. The majority vote, then, goes to the person square in the middle. The moderate. If he agrees with parts of the bill, it will pass. If he mostly disagrees with it, it will fail. It seems that moderates play a vital role as tiebreaker for the House. The Richert article, "Moderates Come Front and Center,"describes a specific scenario in which the moderates decided the fate of a certain bill. "In 1994, Clinton bet much of his political capital on being able to sell his health care initiative to a solidly Democratic Congress, completely misunderstanding how many moderates in his own party hated his ideas and were willing to join with virtually everyone on the Republican side to bury his ambitions." Certainly, the minorities play a huge role in determining the effectiveness of legislature negotiations.
As for the bailout bill that flew through the Senate but failed in the House, I found a number of explanations for the result. First of all, congressmen seemed reluctant to vote for a bill so unpopular with their districts. During a reelection year, congressmen generally will not vote for a bill that will doom their campaigns in the future. And since the term limit for congressmen is two years versus Senators' six, the Senators had less to lose by passing the bill.
There was also the question of partisanship related to this bill. Right after the bill failed, Minority Leader John Boehner blamed Nancy Pelosi's speech, right before the voting began, for the failing of the bill. He stated, "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house." Whether or not that speech actually made that big of a difference is unknown, but it was amusing to hear Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of Boehner's comment. "We don't believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that's hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Campaigns & Elections II
In this year's campaign, both candidates are focusing their platforms on change, and in the simplest terms possible, both platforms seem to center on change from the current administration. John McCain's aim is to set himself apart from typical Republicans through his "maverick" title and his choice of maverick Sarah Palin as his running mate. He strives to accentuate the differences between himself and the current president, citing how often he has voted against Bush or stood up to his own party. Barack Obama is running his campaign on change -- not just from a Democrat standpoint, but from a seemingly ideological standpoint as well. His speeches don't declare that the Democratic party will bring about change, but that he will. In this respect, neither candidate seems like an agent for his party; both seem pretty intent on keeping their respective parties out of their campaigns.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaigns and Elections
This post is going up a little later than I intended. I got caught up in the latest news story about McCain suspending his campaign to address the economic crisis, and then I was fortunate enough to catch Obama's response. This election just keeps getting more fascinating by the day! I really hope that the debates continue as scheduled -- I'm so looking forward to watching them on Friday.
Back to topic.
Just as the primaries aimed to take the elections out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of the general public, campaign finance reform seeks to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations and thereby motivate the general public to fund their candidate's campaign. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to keep party bosses out of the general election, and there will always be loopholes allowing wealthy individuals to funnel their money into a campaign. While the McCain-Feingold act may have "banned the national parties, congressional committees, and federal officeholders from raising and spending soft money," it left opportunities for the wealthy to fund 527 groups independent of certain campaigns. This is what happened to the Kerry campaign back in 2004, when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" bombarded the airwaves with their "issue advocacy ads," and it will continue to happen, since those Swift Boat ads were such a pivotal part of Kerry's defeat.
I think that these reformations of both campaign finance and primaries do have their merits. The primaries add an element of unpredictability to the elections, and since they're done on a state level, more attention gets paid to the voters' opinions. As stated in the textbook, "Presidential primaries, because they tap into voters' preferences in a more direct fashion than caucuses and involve a much larger sector of the electorate, present a particularly good opportunity for testing candidates, policies, and issues in a variety of states." Obviously, the greatest merit to the primary system is its direct correlation with the heart of democracy: the power of the people.
On the flip side, the book also suggests that, perhaps, the people aren't always the best judges of leadership ability. "Whether the new system produces better presidential candidates (or better presidents) than those previously chosen in smoke-filled rooms is another matter."
In the matter of campaign finances, I think it's impossible to imagine reform that completely eliminates partisanship. I think there will always be loopholes like the ones found in the McCain-Feingold act. Based on the loopholes, that even supposedly non-partisan 527 groups can release ads and influence the election, I don't believe that partisanship will ever be fully purged from the elections. Because factions are an inevitability of a democratic system, it's downright laughable to think that America can hold an election without the influence of parties.
And I also think it's unfortunate that money plays such a huge role in campaigning when it's position issues that should take center stage. Third party candidates will never get the recognition or the voice they deserve because of their inability to find campaign donations -- they'll most likely never accrue a large enough following to match the funds raised by the republicans and democrats.
Back to topic.
Just as the primaries aimed to take the elections out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of the general public, campaign finance reform seeks to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations and thereby motivate the general public to fund their candidate's campaign. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to keep party bosses out of the general election, and there will always be loopholes allowing wealthy individuals to funnel their money into a campaign. While the McCain-Feingold act may have "banned the national parties, congressional committees, and federal officeholders from raising and spending soft money," it left opportunities for the wealthy to fund 527 groups independent of certain campaigns. This is what happened to the Kerry campaign back in 2004, when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" bombarded the airwaves with their "issue advocacy ads," and it will continue to happen, since those Swift Boat ads were such a pivotal part of Kerry's defeat.
I think that these reformations of both campaign finance and primaries do have their merits. The primaries add an element of unpredictability to the elections, and since they're done on a state level, more attention gets paid to the voters' opinions. As stated in the textbook, "Presidential primaries, because they tap into voters' preferences in a more direct fashion than caucuses and involve a much larger sector of the electorate, present a particularly good opportunity for testing candidates, policies, and issues in a variety of states." Obviously, the greatest merit to the primary system is its direct correlation with the heart of democracy: the power of the people.
On the flip side, the book also suggests that, perhaps, the people aren't always the best judges of leadership ability. "Whether the new system produces better presidential candidates (or better presidents) than those previously chosen in smoke-filled rooms is another matter."
In the matter of campaign finances, I think it's impossible to imagine reform that completely eliminates partisanship. I think there will always be loopholes like the ones found in the McCain-Feingold act. Based on the loopholes, that even supposedly non-partisan 527 groups can release ads and influence the election, I don't believe that partisanship will ever be fully purged from the elections. Because factions are an inevitability of a democratic system, it's downright laughable to think that America can hold an election without the influence of parties.
And I also think it's unfortunate that money plays such a huge role in campaigning when it's position issues that should take center stage. Third party candidates will never get the recognition or the voice they deserve because of their inability to find campaign donations -- they'll most likely never accrue a large enough following to match the funds raised by the republicans and democrats.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Primaries
(Please bear with me -- I have a nasty cold that's stuffing my head!)
Regardless of how long it seems that the elections drag on, primaries are an absolute necessity for the democratic process, both in terms of party discipline and education of the public.
The primaries serve multiple purposes; they encourage debate about key issues, they inform and energize the public about politics, and they (usually) unite parties behind a candidate. For voters, the primaries serve to inform and energize. Through debates between the candidates, political ads, and media coverage, voters learn more about their candidates and how they stand on certain issues. This part of the primaries is vital; without adequate knowledge of the candidates, voters cannot make informed decisions. The conventions serve as the energizing portion of the primaries. Both parties choose respected and vibrant speakers to praise the chosen candidate and explain why he/she is the better choice which hopefully encourages the public to vote. The only downside of the primaries, for voters, is the overall length of the season and the incessant advertising and campaigning. Voters get slammed over the head with politics during primary season, which can turn people off to voting.
For parties, the primaries generally serve as a positive force. When the entire party supports a candidate, the party becomes a united front. And, when a party is united, that candidate has an edge in the election. Party unity isn't always the case during primaries, as we have seen from the 2008 race. When Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, the Democratic party split; many of those who supported Clinton shunned Obama, forming their own group (PUMA) to elect anyone but Obama. This division increased when Obama chose Biden as his running mate instead of Clinton. On the other hand, the Republican party does seem united behind McCain and Palin thus far.
I'm not sure whether or not the primaries are good or bad for either specific candidate. They seemed wonderful for Obama at first, since he received so much media attention and voters became familiar with him. But when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, the dynamic shifted, and she's now receiving the most attention. In general, though, primaries give candidates the chance to reach voters and inform them of their ideologies.
Regardless of how long it seems that the elections drag on, primaries are an absolute necessity for the democratic process, both in terms of party discipline and education of the public.
The primaries serve multiple purposes; they encourage debate about key issues, they inform and energize the public about politics, and they (usually) unite parties behind a candidate. For voters, the primaries serve to inform and energize. Through debates between the candidates, political ads, and media coverage, voters learn more about their candidates and how they stand on certain issues. This part of the primaries is vital; without adequate knowledge of the candidates, voters cannot make informed decisions. The conventions serve as the energizing portion of the primaries. Both parties choose respected and vibrant speakers to praise the chosen candidate and explain why he/she is the better choice which hopefully encourages the public to vote. The only downside of the primaries, for voters, is the overall length of the season and the incessant advertising and campaigning. Voters get slammed over the head with politics during primary season, which can turn people off to voting.
For parties, the primaries generally serve as a positive force. When the entire party supports a candidate, the party becomes a united front. And, when a party is united, that candidate has an edge in the election. Party unity isn't always the case during primaries, as we have seen from the 2008 race. When Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, the Democratic party split; many of those who supported Clinton shunned Obama, forming their own group (PUMA) to elect anyone but Obama. This division increased when Obama chose Biden as his running mate instead of Clinton. On the other hand, the Republican party does seem united behind McCain and Palin thus far.
I'm not sure whether or not the primaries are good or bad for either specific candidate. They seemed wonderful for Obama at first, since he received so much media attention and voters became familiar with him. But when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, the dynamic shifted, and she's now receiving the most attention. In general, though, primaries give candidates the chance to reach voters and inform them of their ideologies.
Friday, September 12, 2008
What is a party?
Based on the readings, I've drafted a pretty basic definition for political parties.
A party is an inevitable product of a democratic government, consisting of an organized group of individuals who share similar ideas about how government should function, and who actively work to elect a member of their group to serve in office.
First of all, I stated that parties are inevitable based on both Federalist papers 10 and 51. In #10, James Madison seems to argue against political parties, stating that parties, "inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Madison believes that political parties will encourage discord and partisan bickering rather than collaborate to improve quality of life.
However, Madison admits that you cannot destroy parties; you would have to either "destroy liberty," which is unthinkable and borderline treason, or by "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests," which is impossible. Therefore, parties must form in order to allow each person to express his opinion. And when multiple people share the same opinions, parties emerge.
But whether or not political parties are a positive or negative result of democracy seems to be a matter of opinion and circumstance. When looking at this election, for instance, Washington's opinions are right on the ball. "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." All candidates seemed more intent on bashing each other than emphasizing bipartisanship. However, when both parties do collaborate, important and necessary bills do get passed, like this most recent one regarding tax breaks for clean energy production and for buying energy-efficient cars: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/energy_bills/index.htm?cnn=yes
A party is an inevitable product of a democratic government, consisting of an organized group of individuals who share similar ideas about how government should function, and who actively work to elect a member of their group to serve in office.
First of all, I stated that parties are inevitable based on both Federalist papers 10 and 51. In #10, James Madison seems to argue against political parties, stating that parties, "inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Madison believes that political parties will encourage discord and partisan bickering rather than collaborate to improve quality of life.
However, Madison admits that you cannot destroy parties; you would have to either "destroy liberty," which is unthinkable and borderline treason, or by "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests," which is impossible. Therefore, parties must form in order to allow each person to express his opinion. And when multiple people share the same opinions, parties emerge.
But whether or not political parties are a positive or negative result of democracy seems to be a matter of opinion and circumstance. When looking at this election, for instance, Washington's opinions are right on the ball. "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." All candidates seemed more intent on bashing each other than emphasizing bipartisanship. However, when both parties do collaborate, important and necessary bills do get passed, like this most recent one regarding tax breaks for clean energy production and for buying energy-efficient cars: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/energy_bills/index.htm?cnn=yes
Welcome!
Hello everyone!
My name is Kate, and this is my blog for Poli Sci 421: Party Politics in America. I'm a senior, and I'm finally graduating in December with a major in English (Professional/Technical Writing) and a minor in Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition to school, I work at a bakery and a nursing home, and I'm also interning with Professor Leslie Whitaker who writes a syndicated column for a bunch of newspapers across the country. In my free time (ha!) I like to knit, do yoga, play video games (WoW and Diablo are my favorites), and religiously follow the presidential election and the news in general.
This is the first political science course I've ever taken, and I'm pretty nervous about it. I've been a politics junkie since the 2004 election, but I never had time in my schedule for a poli sci class until now. I hope I can keep up with all of you Political Science majors! But I'm really interested in the concept of political parties, and I hope that this course will help me not only understand parties better, but also teach me more about politics overall.
My name is Kate, and this is my blog for Poli Sci 421: Party Politics in America. I'm a senior, and I'm finally graduating in December with a major in English (Professional/Technical Writing) and a minor in Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition to school, I work at a bakery and a nursing home, and I'm also interning with Professor Leslie Whitaker who writes a syndicated column for a bunch of newspapers across the country. In my free time (ha!) I like to knit, do yoga, play video games (WoW and Diablo are my favorites), and religiously follow the presidential election and the news in general.
This is the first political science course I've ever taken, and I'm pretty nervous about it. I've been a politics junkie since the 2004 election, but I never had time in my schedule for a poli sci class until now. I hope I can keep up with all of you Political Science majors! But I'm really interested in the concept of political parties, and I hope that this course will help me not only understand parties better, but also teach me more about politics overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
