Tea Party Negatives on the Rise?

Apparently so. Is this because they are now in power and the electorate (the moderates anyway) can see what they actually want to do instead of what they say they want to do?



Related Links:

- People Previously Apathetic About Tea Partiers Now Dislike Them.
- Poll Shows More Americans Have Unfavorable Views of Tea Party.

. Why the Tea Party’s Clout Fizzled in Washington.

The Drift to the Right

In our discussions of elections and parties I keep drawing the bell curve which shows the mid-point of the aggregate policy preferences in the general public, but probably haven't done enough to illustrate how the mid-point can move over time. Sometimes it drifts to the left (as it did in the New Deal Era) and sometimes to the right (as it did following election of Reagan -- actually Carter).

Here's an example. This story describes the rightward drift of environmental policy. Democrats have been proposing cap and trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emission while Republican find them extreme, but 20 years ago Republicans were pushing cap and trade over strict regulations because it was the market solution to the problem. What was one a right wing proposal is not mainstream, and unacceptable to the right.

The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.

And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.

McComish v. Bennett

- High Court Signals Arizona Campaign Law May be Doomed.
- ScotusBlog.
- Wikipedia: McComish v. Bennett
- The Monkey Cage: Clean Elections vs. Political Speech.

How Cohesive are Republicans in the U.S. House?

Thsi adds to 2301s discussion of parties in the government. From Wonkbook:

The math of a possible budget deal isn’t particularly hard. If John Boehner can’t get enough Republicans, he can always move to the left and get some Democrats. As my colleague Paul Kane reports, there’ve been some preliminary feelers from GOP leadership looking into doing just that. Plenty of Blue Dogs would be happy to help out, and the Republican leadership could get a spending bill with cuts equal to their initial $30 billion proposal. By any normal accounting, that’d be a win. It’d be as if House Democrats had managed to send their first health-care bill, complete with public option, sailing through the Senate in order to head off a singe-payer proposal favored by the party’s liberal wing. What the arithmetic leaves out, however, is Eric Cantor.

Whether you call it the Tea Party or not, the hardline of the modern Republican Party has demonstrated its willingness and skill at deposing incumbent Republicans who are too willing to compromise with the other side. Deposing the Speaker of the House, however, is hard. But it’s a bit less hard if you have another option waiting in the wings. An option like Eric Cantor. As David Rogers and Jake Sherman note, Cantor has been separating himself from Boehner’s “I’m not going to put any options on the table or take any options off the table” and making it clear that he both opposes a short-term CR and hasn’t been informed about a range of compromise discussions. It’s an odd public stance for the Majority Leader to take. But it’s right in line with a Republican Party where the conservative caucus has promised to counter Paul Ryan’s budget with an even-more conservative document -- even though no one has yet seen Ryan’s budget!

To a degree that freshman Republicans may not realize, however, Boehner’s allergy to a shutdown is in their best interests. If you buy the Mitch McConnell line that the GOP’s top priority should be denying President Obama reelection, then you want the government to stay open. Evidence that political scientists collected from almost 170 instances of late budgets or shutdowns on the state level showed that fiscal chaos hurts incumbent legislators from both parties win reelection but helps the executive when he runs. They theorized that this is because it makes Congress look small and the executive big. And sure enough, Obama has stayed out of the fray, and is set to announce a major new initiative on green energy today -- the exact sort of forward-looking, let’s-get-on-with-the-people’s-problems initiative that will contrast badly with a Congress unable to come to a reasonable compromise on 2011 funding.

Obama Has No Doctrine - The Atlantic

Obama Has No Doctrine - The Atlantic

- NYT: Is there really an Obama Doctrine?
- The Obama doctrine: A gray area the size of Libya.

The Conservative States of America - The Atlantic

The Conservative States of America - The Atlantic

Divisions Within the Democratic Coalition

The Democratic Party has always been more diverse than the Republican Party, and though it generally leads to more people identifying with the party - though not recently - it creates a unique set of problems. The groups within the party do not always get along, and sometimes can be hostile towards each other.

Here are two current examples:

From WOAI San Antonio, evidence of tension between Latinos and gays and lesbians: Bexar County Democratic Chair Dan Ramos is in hot water after comments referring to gays, blacks, whites, and Jews outraged the community. The Texas Democratic Party Chairman, Boyd Richie, asked Ramos to resign. Richie accused Ramos of bigotry and creating chaos since his election a year ago.

On Friday, Ramos was quoted in the San Antonio Current. "He called Stonewall Democrats Nazi termites that have wormed their way into the party hierarchy," explained Dee Villarrubia, an openly gay Bexar County Democratic Deputy Chair who was elected in June. "I'm shocked and appalled," said Villarrubia. "Dan Ramos' comments are an affront to the founding principles of our democracy."

From KTRK, conflict between Latinos and African-Americans flare up over the recent sexual assault in Cleveland: On March 10, in Cleveland, there was a rally focused on the now 19 defendants accused of raping an 11-year-old girl. The event was organized by community activist Quanell X. The defendants are black and the girl is Hispanic.

Among Quanell X's statements at the event was, "How does a child get from one community to another and nobody in her home has any idea of what's going on? Stop by her parents' house and ask a serious question about how this happened from September to November and they knew nothing?"

On Monday, a group of Hispanic advocates pushed back.

"Transferring the responsibility of 19 perpetrators to the shoulders of this child's parents is unspeakable," said Yolanda Black Navarro with AAMA. "Comments made about this 11-year-old's way of dressing, her parents' supervision and/or lack thereof, is unacceptable."

Democracy and Casinos in Texas

Here's a great example of the limits institutions place on democracy:

From the Chronicle:

While a new statewide poll shows that 86 percent of Texans believe the public should vote on whether to legalize casinos, an influential state Senate chairman with jurisdiction over gambling said Monday he has no intention of advancing the necessary legislation.

"There is no support in my committee," said state Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock. "I just don't think there are the votes in the Senate. I don't see any chance of passage."

Duncan's opposition signals almost insurmountable odds for the expansion of gambling in Texas, despite the industry's hopes that lawmakers would look favorably upon casinos this year as a solution to the state's fiscal crisis.
The story also illustrates the Lieutenant Governor's control over the committee system, and the impact that can have on legislation:

So far, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has referred all gambling resolutions and bills filed in the Texas Senate to the State Affairs Committee, which Duncan chairs.

His spokesman, Mike Walz, said Dewhurst also likely would refer all "stand-alone" gambling bills passed by the House to Duncan's committee. He noted that the issue could be attached to other significant legislation that traditionally is heard by other committees.

Duncan's opposition creates a huge hurdle for an industry that has geared up its lobbying effort to take advantage of a desperate search by state lawmakers for new revenue sources.

By sending gambling bill to Duncan's Committee, which is a hugely important one the the legislature, Dewhurst can kill the bills without putting his fingerprints on the weaponry.

More on Senator Duncan:
- Senate website.
- Texas Tribune.
- Duncan's quotes.

The Senate Committee on State Affairs

- Official website.
-

Obama's Speech

The president took his message jusitifying the actioons against Libya public. No idea yet if it wil impact opinion. Andrew Sullivan summarizes the range of opinions floating by on the blogs.

An overview of opinion from the Gallup Poll:


Notice the ideological and partisan differences, ironic no?

One of the Internet's Inventors Dies

Paul Baran invented packet switching, which is still in use today, as a means of ensuring that communications could surive a nuclear attack. Little surprise that the Defense Department (DARPA) would purchase the technique and use it as the backbone of the Arpanet - later to become the internet.

I've argued in 2302 that the federal government, through the military, has promoted practically every technical development in American history. Here's some proof.

Fannie and Freddie: Lobbying Powerhouses

And here's a nother book providing an account of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rise to power. It ain't pretty and it illustrates the power of sucessful lobbying. Here's more from NPR:

"Nothing before or since, in my judgment, has ever been as effective as their lobbying strategy," Baker says. "If you were a financial services industry lobbyist available for duty in the 1990s and you were not hired by Fannie or Freddie ... you were really not much of a player."

The Fannie Mae lobbying operation achieved legendary status on Capitol Hill. It was rumored they could cost you a committee assignment, or even your job.

Now, this is the point in the story where you'd expect to hear denials from Fannie Mae, saying the tales about their lobbying have been exaggerated. Not so.

"It was always an us against them," says Bill Maloni, Fannie Mae's chief lobbyist, who left the company in 2004.

Here's how he jokingly describes Fannie's approach to critics: "If you punch my brother I'll burn down your house. I want to kill them, bury them, and piss on their graves."

Politicide

I'd never heard this term before (of course there's a wikipedia site about it): politicide: a gradual but systematic attempt to cause the annihilation of an independent political and social entity.

Here's a story about politicide from NPR that illustrates the difficulty of holding competitive elections in a totalitarian country. In 2301 we discussed the recent elections in Zimbabwe where an opposition candidate won the elections, but Robert Mugabe (who makes most top ten evil dictator lists) engineered a second round, but not before literally killing off the opposition. The story is told in a book titled The Fear: Robert Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe:

. . . three years ago, the nation held supposedly "free and fair" elections. Although Mugabe tried to rig them, he was defeated. Godwin raced home, he writes, "to dance on Robert Mugabe's political grave."

But Mugabe wasn't going anywhere. For weeks, he suppressed election results, then insisted on a runoff between himself and winning opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. While Mugabe stalled, he mobilized militias to unleash a wholesale campaign of torture, imprisonment and death against the opposition party, known as the MDC.

Everyone was targeted. Candidates elected to Parliament. Voting organizers. A couple who painted a pro-MDC sign on the side of their store. Farmers, housewives — even children and babies who simply lived in villages where the MDC won a majority — were tortured and killed. Mugabe launched a scorched earth policy against his own people.

Dubbed "Operation Let Us Finish Them Off," there was nothing covert or nuanced about it.

Instead of writing a political obituary, Godwin found himself keeping a body count in the midst of a "politicide."

California Democratic Party v. Jones

A 1999 case negating the ability of California to curtail the extremism facilitated by primaries by allowing for a blanket primary. I recommend this to my 2301s who want to dig more fully into primary elections and the right of association as applied to political parties. This link at the Oyez Project details the case and has audio of the majority opinion.

From Oyes' Summary:

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with -- to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by -- those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary." Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. "This Court's willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties' behest is," Justice Stevens wrote, "an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States."- The right to association.
- Freedom of association.

This decision led to the following a few years later:
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party

2009 Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act

From the Chronicle, a story regarding access to the polls:

Legislators have been working on making it easier for far-from-home Texas military personnel to vote. Texas must comply with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act. The law known as MOVE requires states to provide ballots to military personnel at least 45 days before an election.

The San Antonio Express-News reported Monday that making it easier for military personnel to cast ballots is expected to require Texas to change March primary and runoff dates. State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio and Rep. Van Taylor of Plano are working to develop a bipartisan plan.

Taylor, as a Marine captain in 2003, led a platoon during the Iraq war. He says the real issue “is the amount of time to request, receive and return a ballot by mail.”

5 flirt with Iowa's conservatives; one fires them up ...

From the Chronicle -- for my 2301s -- potential presidential candidates meet with party activists in Iowa:

In these preliminary stages of the contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Iowa conservatives have begun to flex their muscles, and the candidates are responding.

Five potential candidates - party veterans and long shots alike - came here Saturday for a day of attacks on President Barack Obama's policies, talk of constitutional principles and a chance to gauge the mood of the most conservative wing of the GOP base.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the most conservative members of the House, hosted the daylong conference, which drew hundreds of activists. It was the second conservative gathering of the month in the state to draw a handful of presidential hopefuls - the first was hosted by a religious conservative group - and was another reminder of how deeply intertwined fiscal and cultural issues are in the state with the nation's first presidential caucuses.

The possible presidential candidates included Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, businessman Herman Cain, and former United Nations ambassador John Bolton. But it was Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who lit up the gathering with a rapid-fire denunciation of the president that had the audience on its feet cheering.

"Are you in for 2012?" she called out to the audience. "Are you in? Are you going to make it happen? Are we going to take our country back?" As the applause built, she concluded by saying, "I agree with you. I say we do. I say I'm in. You're in. We will take this back in 2012."

Does democracy exist only for the wealthy?

There's evidence to support that idea.

From Ezra Klein (via Andrew Sullivan) points to a book that makes the case:

Ezra Klein explores inequality's roots in a review of Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson:


[T]he book’s greatest strength is its easy command of political science data, which sets it apart from most of the other studies of inequality that have been released. Perhaps the most shocking study the authors cite comes from Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton University. Gilens has been collecting the results of nearly 2,000 survey questions reaching back to the 1980s, looking for evidence that when opinions change, so too does policy. And he found it—but only for the rich.
“Most policy changes with majority support didn’t become law,” Hacker and Pierson write. The exception was “when they were supported by those at the top. When the opinions of the poor diverged from those of the well-off, the opinions of the poor ceased to have any apparent influence: If 90 percent of poor Americans supported a policy change, it was no more likely to happen than if 10 percent did. By contrast, when more of the well-off supported a change, it was substantially more likely to happen.”


In part, this is because politicians began to need money more than they had before, as the costs of campaigns started skyrocketing. The predictable outcome? Both parties have been relying more on wealthy donors and less on labor unions.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

I've been hunting around for this thing forever and finally saw it mentioned in a Clive Crook commentary on the health care law. One of the arguments used in favor of requiring the uninsured to get insured is that the law requires that emergency health care be provided to anyone that requires it. Here's the law that establishes that: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

From Wikipedia: It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.


Those who are not insured, impose costs on those that are. This is the argument used to justify the law under the commerce clause.

This is a limited humanitarian intervention, not war

This answers a question we discussed in class today regarding our "activities" in Libya.

All Glenn Beck All the Time

If Oprah can do it, why not Beck?

A War of Perceptions

A piece in the NYT describes the current relationship between parties in Washington, heading for the 2012 election:

With Democrats and Republicans locked in a struggle for supremacy, both are guardedly optimistic that currents are blowing their way. In dozens of conversations over the past week or so, while differences emerge among politicians when it comes to their own parties, there’s a consensus about their opponents’ vulnerabilities.

Republicans already are overreaching, Democrats say, badly misconstruing any mandate from last November. The opposition’s presidential field is a historically weak one that will be further impaired by the demands of the political base.

Republicans think that Democrats aren’t in sync with a nationwide anti-government mood. President Barack Obama, saddled with unpopular measures enacted in his first two years and what his foes consider a leadership void, will suffer next year.

Just in Case

From the story below, a copy of the text Nixon would have read had the crew of Apollo 11 not returned safely from the moon. H.R. Halderman was Nixon's chief of staff, Bill Safire was a speechwriter.

Group Think in the Kremlin

This is a truly tragic story that illustrates a key problem of presidential advising (though it involves decision making in the Soviet Union). Leonid Breznev, the Soviet leader, wanted to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution with an ambitious space flight, but the technicians involved in the flight - including the cosmonaut that would eventually die in it - were aware of literally hundreds of problems with the spacecraft. But no one in the leadership wanted to hear it, so the flight went on as scheduled, with the predicted result.

The plan was to launch a capsule, the Soyuz 1, with Komarov inside. The next day, a second vehicle would take off, with two additional cosmonauts; the two vehicles would meet, dock, Komarov would crawl from one vehicle to the other, exchanging places with a colleague, and come home in the second ship. It would be, Brezhnev hoped, a Soviet triumph on the 50th anniversary of the Communist revolution. Brezhnev made it very clear he wanted this to happen.

The problem was Gagarin. Already a Soviet hero, the first man ever in space, he and some senior technicians had inspected the Soyuz 1 and had found 203 structural problems — serious problems that would make this machine dangerous to navigate in space. The mission, Gagarin suggested, should be postponed.

The question was: Who would tell Brezhnev? Gagarin wrote a 10-page memo and gave it to his best friend in the KGB, Venyamin Russayev, but nobody dared send it up the chain of command. Everyone who saw that memo, including Russayev, was demoted, fired or sent to diplomatic Siberia. With less than a month to go before the launch, Komarov realized postponement was not an option. He met with Russayev, the now-demoted KGB agent, and said, "I'm not going to make it back from this flight."
This is not that unusual a story when it comes to presidential decision making. Sometimes they just make up their minds and shut themselves off from contrary opinions.

Will There be a Rally Around the Flag Effect?

A Nate Silver piece highlighted in Andrew Sullivan's site:

CNN has released a poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, that asked people for their views on President Obama’s handling of Libya. Initial reactions are more favorable for Mr. Obama than not, but the numbers are close enough that one can easily imagine some political downside for the president.

There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ.
- The CNN Poll.
- Rally Around the Flag Syndrome.

Are the Airstrikes Constitutional?

Jack Goldsmith does not think they were a good idea, but thinks they are constitutional and fall within the limits of presidential military power as defined over time by the courts:

I do not believe that the military action in Libya is unconstitutional.

Legal scholars disagree about the original meaning of the Constitution's conferral on Congress of the power "to declare war." Many contend it required Congress to formally approve all uses of U.S. military force abroad, save, as James Madison said at the Convention, in situations needed to "repel sudden attack." Others maintain the "declare war" clause provides more leeway, allowing the president to use force abroad as long as the force does not rise to the level of "war," whatever that means. Yet others argue that the framers meant simply to give Congress the authority to signal under international law a state of war; the real work in controlling presidential initiation of force, under this view, was Congress' control over appropriations and the size of the standing army. There are many more theories about the original understanding. Even if we could definitively resolve this debate, which we can't, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—should control outcomes in the context of presidential war powers, a context that as much as any is marked by radically changed circumstances.

Compounding the problem of indeterminate constitutional language is the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.
Eric Posner suggests that Obama is doing nothing that previous presidents have not done before him (the imperial presdiency may now be institutionalized), and suggests further that Congress should play a limited role :

President Obama is following a long line of precedents in which the executive lanched a foreign war without congressional authorization. The president disavowed these precedents during his campaign; he may or may not attempt to distinguish his campaign statement by invoking the UN security council resolution authorizing the attack, as Truman did for Korea. But this legal wrangling is all superstructure. Congress is disabled in numerous ways from making practical contributions to a war effort. It cannot prevent the president from starting a war, and it is nearly impossible to halt an ongoing war. Wars, then, simply become an opportunity for members of Congress to stake their reputations as hawks or doves for the sake of future elections.

. . . Congress could not play a role. Lacking a leader who could commit it to a course of action, Congress could not make promises. Lacking a single mouthpiece, it could not be consulted. Foreign countries naturally turned to the president. Nor is it realistic for Congress to formally ratify the president’s decision if formal ratification involves the possibility of rejection. Then the next time that the United States is involved in a foreign policy crisis, other countries won’t know who to speak to, and who to believe.


As we've argued in class, the stucture of the executive seems to put it in a better position than Congress to make and implement decisions about foreign affairs. Its a matter of design.

Cao v. Federal Election Commission

For 2301 as we dig into elections this week:

From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the Republican National Committee’s latest attempt to knock out long-standing campaign finance restrictions.

Without comment, the justices rejected a challenge from the RNC and former Louisiana congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao that sought to end federal restrictions on how much a political party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate. Cao lost a reelection bid in 2010.

The RNC said the restrictions violate the party’s First Amendment rights, a claim that was turned aside by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

It was one of two challenges the GOP filed after the 2008 elections. The court did not accept either of them.

In June, the justices let stand a lower court’s decision that upheld the constitutionality of the “soft-money ban” in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. That law bars national political parties from accepting or spending unregulated campaign cash.
- The National Journal.
- The FEC website.
- ScotusBlog.
- Campaign Legal Center.
- Roll Call.

Are the Airstrikes Impeachable Offenses?

Dennis Kucinich thinks so:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

Egyptian voters say ‘yes’ to speedy elections

From the Washington Post:

On Sunday, judicial officials reported that 77 percent of those who cast ballots in a historic referendum Saturday voted “yes” on constitutional amendments designed to speed Egypt’s transition from temporary military rule to credible parliamentary and presidential elections.

About 18 million out of more than 45 million eligible voters went to the polls — or 41 percent, below the optimistically high estimates officials had issued Saturday but still a remarkable display of democratic vigor as Egyptians embraced their first chance since the colonial era to participate in a political process whose outcome wasn’t essentially rigged.

The constitutional changes, drafted by a military-appointed panel of legal experts, will encourage the formation of political parties, restrict future presidents to two four-year terms, rein in executive powers, and limit emergency rule to six months, subject to parliamentary approval, rather than the 30 years that marked the tenure of former president Hosni Mubarak.
A useful topic for this week's discussion in 2301 about elections and past discussions about constitutions.

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

Obama's decision to join the effort to enforce the U.N. Resolution against Libya seems to be justified by something called the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.

From Wikipedia:

The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.



1.A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).


2.If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.


3.If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.
- Daniel Larison is not convinced by it.
- Some detail on how the decision was made to go at Libya.
- International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.

Mopery

Probable Cause?

This is a new one for me: Mopery.

Mopery is a vague, informal, and usually humorous name for minor offenses. The word is based on the verb to mope, which originally meant “to wander aimlessly”; it only later acquired the overtones of “bored and depressed”. The word mope appears to have first been used in the 16th century, and appears in Shakespeare's works.

It has been used in certain jurisdictions as a legal term to mean (for example) “walking down the street with no clear destination or purpose”. Like loitering and vagrancy laws, mopery is sometimes used by law enforcement to detain individuals seen as “unsavoury”, as the police believe they have prevented them from committing a clearer or more dangerous crime.

Two Free Speech Cases

Eugene Voloch comments on two recent incidents touching on the freedom of speech.

In the first, free speech is not accepted as defense for urging people - online - to commit suicide.

In the second, a UCLA student's video - which makes disparaging comments about Asian students - is called moronic, but protected.


Is this video protected speech?

 

One persons thoughts on Libertarianism, Liberalism, and Conservatism

Ilta Somin muses on the intersections of:

- Libertarianism and Liberalism and Libertarianism and Conservatism.

"A regulator versus regulator dispute" SEC v FHFA

For discussion this week in 2302, some recent federal executive activity. From the Washington Post:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is moving toward charging former and current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives with violations related to the financial crisis, setting up a clash with the housing regulator that oversees the companies, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The SEC, responsible for enforcing securities laws, is alleging that at least four senior executives failed to provide necessary information to investors about the companies’ mortgage holdings as the U.S. housing market collapsed.

But the agency that most closely regulates Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, disagrees with that assessment, according to sources familiar with the matter.

FHFA officials think Fannie and Freddie’s financial disclosures, which agency staff members had reviewed before the documents were released to the public, were sufficient, the sources said. One source added that FHFA has sent a letter to the SEC opposing the filing of charges.

An FHFA spokesman declined to comment.
This is mighty complex. Essentially, one federal regulatory agency charged with investigating securities fraud wants to charge two government sponsored enterprises for activities related to the recent financial crisis, while a fourth agency that oversees those enterprises, wants to protect them from those charges. This is the latest in the housing crisis saga.

More on the story:

- David Indiviglio I.
- David Indiviglio II.
- Life after Fannie and Freddie


Here are the players:

- Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Federal Housing Finance Agency.
- Fannie Mae.
- Freddie Mac.

Height and Weight Discrimination?

Here's a brief little piece that touches on the limits of civil rights legislation. The author is criticizing a Washington Times writer's take on the Obama Administration;s civil rights enforcement policy:

Here is a strange piece in the Washington Times by editorial writer Kerry Picket criticizing the Department of Justice because it:

"will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department."


Well, yes. Discrimination based on size or weight is not barred by federal law, so the federal Department of Justice has no business investigating such discrimination.
Should they?

"A tyrannical government is not a legitimate government"

This is an important and provocative post from David Kopel. I need to add this to my 2301 lecture on natural rights. The author quotes a variety of classical authors who make arguments against the legitimacy of tyrannical governments, likening them to robbers. A tyrannical government is not a legitimate government. That statement should make sense if you properly understand the argument made in the Declaration of Independence.

Consider this required reading.

Obviously the post relates to current issues regarding Libya, but it gives no hint about what pragmatic steps can be taken to deal with tyrannical governments. Is there an obligation to remove them from power?

Richard Wirthlin

Richard Wirthlin, a pollster who worked with Ronald Reagan died recently. Both 2301s and 2302s ought to read up on him as he is credited (if that's the proper word) with developing the field of campaign polling.

From the Huffington Post:

He first polled for Ronald Reagan when the future president was seeking reelection as California's governor in 1970. As recounted to author David Moore for his book, The Super Pollsters, Wirthlin had not previously been "a strong Reagan supporter," at least not "until I met him." Although he initially thought of Reagan as "a two-bit, B-grade actor, four degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun," Wirthlin's view changed after he spend two hours alone with Reagan explaining the results of a poll on policy issues.

He soon became a trusted adviser, chief strategist of Reagan's successful 1980 presidential campaign and the pollster who reportedly met with Reagan in the White House every month to brief him on his latest surveys. Reagan later described Wirthlin as "the best in the business ... when he speaks, I listen."

Former colleagues interviewed by The Huffington Post spoke of Wirthlin as a trailblazer in the then-emerging field of campaign polling. "When we started in this business," recalled former Wirthlin Worldwide Executive Vice President Vince Breglio, "there really only were three firms operating in the political realm."

. . .

Wirthlin's former employees and colleagues credit him with a series of innovations that continue to influence the practice of campaign polling today. These include:

The right direction/wrong track question. Colleagues credit Wirthlin with being the original author of the question that asks whether things in the country are "generally going in the right direction" or have gotten "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." Most national media polls now track that question as a leading indicator of support for incumbent officeholders. As Wirthlin explained in a 2004 op-ed, the question helped inspire Reagan's now famous rhetorical question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Nightly tracking polls. David Moore credits Wirthlin with the first systematic use of the nightly tracking poll, in which a relatively small number of respondents are polled every day and their results are averaged in "rolling samples" of those interviewed on the day before.

Dial group tests. Newhouse says Wirthlin was the first campaign pollster to do what is now called "dial testing," the process of wiring up focus group respondents to mechanical dials that they use to constantly rate a presidential speech or debate.

Other innovations may have been less about invention than application within the realm of campaign-sponsored polling. Breglio credits Wirthlin with the first extensive application of advanced statistical techniques such as multiple regression and factor analysis. Republican pollster Steve Lombardo never worked for Wirthlin, but nonetheless sees his most "powerful and lasting" contribution as his pioneering measurement of political values. "He forced us to go beyond surface attitudes and to find the key 'value' that was driving that attitude. His feeling was that core values like beliefs in fairness or freedom were often at the core of public opinion, and that only by peeling back that onion could we begin to understand how to change attitudes."

Is Obama Now an Imperial President?

Now that he's made a decision to commit forces without congressional approval, Andrew Sullivan thinks so:

The proper response to this presidential power-grab is a Congressional vote - as soon as possible.

That will reveal the factions that support this kind of return to the role of global policeman, and force the GOP to go on the record. I also look forward to the statements of the various Republican candidates in support of this president. ...

A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even Bush. No plane should lift off, no bomb released, until the Congress has voted. I don't see why Obama should oppose this. He needs some Congressional support in an open-ended military commitment to ensure the protection of civilians in Libya.

Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill

While putting material together for the last lecture on the executive branch I came across Warren Harding's support for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill (1922) which passed the House but was filibustered succcessfully in the Senate. It would have made lynching a federal crime, but there were questions about its constitutionality. States were uninterested in prosecuting those accused of lynching, the federal government was then expected to step in to ensure that all citizens would be guaranteed the protection of their civil rights.

Top Secret America

Last year the Washington Post published an interesting study of the security and intelligence apparatus set up after 9/11.

Referendum in Ohio?

From the Atlantic, an item for 2301:

Yesterday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who after just two months in office already had a 28-year record low 40 percent job approval rating -- unveiled his budget plan, which includes slashing public school budgets and selling several state prisons to the private sector. Meanwhile, a coalition of labor unions, community groups, and small student associations held a "Day of Actions" in protest of Senate Bill 5, with activities such as a teachers' rally, picketing on Columbus's Capitol Hill and phonebanking.

The bill, which is backed Kasich and currently making its way through the Ohio House of Representatives, would severely limit collective bargaining power by public-sector employees, including police, firefighters and teachers. Unions would not be able to bargain on pension or health-care plans, yearly step increases would be thrown out in favor of merit raises, and if there were disagreements over contract negotiations, the bill bans strikes, and adds fines for walkouts.

Labor groups and Democrats anticipate the bill's passage through the Republican dominated House -- it passed the Ohio Senate on March 5 -- but plan to fight back by working to put the legislation directly before voters in a special ballot election this fall. Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, lacks a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but it does have a direct means for overturning unpopular legislation: If labor and Democrats are able to secure 200,300 signatures in the coming months, a ballot proposition to vote on overturning Senate Bill 5 will appear before voters come November.

That means Ohio pro-union forces won't need to rely on labor-friendly Democrats to get elected in a special election in order to overturn anti-union legislation -- their plan in Wisconsin, where they are seeking to recall eight GOP senators, elect Democrats in their stead, then repeal the just-passed law stripping public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights in the state. Instead, Ohio union supporters can take on the offending legislation directly themselves.

Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish By Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan highlights poll results that show that Palin's overall support within the Republican Party is diminshing, but those who support her do so strongly (Huckabee's supporters are similarly enthusiastic). He suggests, appropriately, that this makes her very strong in the primaries, though low overall numbers may make her uncompettive in a general election. Obama runs very strongly against her head to head.

For 2301s this is an important point. Primary elections - which are conducted by each party - are different affairs than general elections. Turnout is lower and tends to be composed mostly of hard core party identifiers who are often extreme in their ideological beliefs. Palin has been shown to be very popular among this crowd, but no so among the moderates who sit out primaries but do so in the general election. This tells us something about the power struggle within parties. Party leaders may attempt to influence which candidates are likely to get the party nomination, but the decision is ultimately up to the party base. It is not unusual for the passionate base to select a candidate unapealing to the calmer middle.

- Palin's Favorability Declines; Negatives Exceed her Rivals'
- Poll: Palin's numbers slide among Republicans

Can a Japanese Earthquake Impact a Texas Nuclear Power Plant Project?

Apparently so:

The repercussions from an earthquake that has rocked nuclear facilities in Japan threaten to shake up the financial grounding of a proposed power plant expansion in Texas.

A Japanese company that owns the distressed Fukushima Daiichi power plant had figured to own as much as 20 percent of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project . But with the company, Tokyo Electric Power Co. , reeling from reports of radiation leaks, financial analysts on Monday called the deal uncertain.

Some of the South Texas Project electricity is shipped to Austin, which is a part-owner of the two current reactors. The city is considering whether to buy more power from the two proposed reactors.

Tokyo Electric had agreed to spend $155 million to become a 10 percent owner of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project.

That money, which included an option to spend an additional $125 million for another 10 percent stake, was contingent on potential federal loan guarantees. With Washington now reconsidering nuclear power, those loan guarantees have become a very open question.

Should Forensics be Separated from Law Enforcement?

Radley Balko:

After countless scandals in recent years, the problems with America's forensics system are finally getting some national attention. In December, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill to reform the country's crime labs. In January, ProPublica and Frontline teamed up for a year-long investigation into the ways criminal autopsies are conducted across the country. In North Carolina, the state legislature is considering reforms to that state's crime lab, which was rocked by a damning 2010 investigation commissioned by the state attorney general and a follow-up report by the Raleigh News and Observer that uncovered widespread corruption, hiding of exculpatory findings, and a pro-prosecution bias among crime lab workers. All of this comes on the heels of a congressionally commissioned 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found expert witnesses in many areas of forensics routinely give testimony that is not backed by good science.

So the good news is that we are starting to see some skepticism, even some outrage, about the way forensic science is used in criminal cases. The bad news is that the solutions politicians and policy makers are proposing, while better than nothing, do not really address the primary problem. That problem is perverse incentives.

To be sure, there are other problems with the forensics system. For starters, many forensic disciplines, such as hair and carpet-fiber analysis, blood spatter analysis, and especially bite mark analysis, have not been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Even fingerprint analysis is not the sure thing it was once thought to be. Many of these fields were either invented by law enforcement agencies or honed and refined by them. The fields have not been subjected to peer review, and the methods by which, for example, a carpet-fiber or ballistics analyst produces a "match" are not blind. On the contrary, the analyst often knows the details of the crime and which sample implicates the suspect. When done this way, these analyses are not science, but they are often presented in court as if they were.

Early Poll Results on Republican Governors

Not good, Walker and Kasich are polling in the 30s, but there's little chance that defanging unions will be undone, which probably pays off dividends down the line.

Some History: When Attitudes Shifted About Slavery

In honor of the ongoing 150th anniversary of the Civil War, the NYT is providing a daily blow by blow of what happened. Yesterday's contains an interesting observation from one on Thomas Jefferson's grandsons:

Randolph considered these non-choices. He trembled over Virginia’s fate if the convention chose the new federal Union. He scoffed at the fantasy, held by many of the state’s Unionists, that Southerners would bring the “Northern people … right after a while” on slavery’s blessings. “Sir, they are much more likely to make us wrong than we are to bring them right. Their anti-slavery is as old as slavery itself. … It has all the signs of a great mental movement. The opposite sentiment with us … is comparatively a thing of yesterday — it has not been inculcated in early life. … It has hardly had time to be understood and appreciated. … To dash it now against the iron-bound fanaticism of the North would be the height of folly.”
His point, clearly, was that the north was winning the battle for public opinion. Once that is lost, little else matters.

Were the Founders Really in Favor of Limited Government? Is So Why?

Big Tent Revue points to an old article in Dissent which challanges this idea, or at least points out the the country's founders were far more complex politicaly than we give them credit for. They did all seem to believe that disparities in wealth were a big problem and limiting the size of the national government was a way for the wealthy to ensure that any compeition from below was stiffled. The purpose of limiting government was to enhance equality. Things have changed since then.

From Bid Tent Review:

A fascinating and revealing article from an old Dissent about the redistributive dimensions of early Jeffersonian thought. The founding fathers are often portrayed, particularly by rightists, as devoutly laissez-faire. In reality, they seemed to divide up between conservative Hamiltonian corporatists and radical Jeffersonian egalitarians, the former urging government collusion with commercialists and the latter urging some form of leveling to the advantage of small holders and craftsmen. From the start, the only place where laissez-faire prevailed was at the federal level; states and localities had broad powers to police morals and markets. And even at the federal level, “hands off” inherently meant favoring some against others.

“Wealth, like suffrage,” Taylor wrote in his Inquiry Into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, “must be considerably distributed, to sustain a democratick republic; and hence, whatever draws a considerable proportion of either into a few hands, will destroy it. As power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or lose power.”

From Dissent:

If the welfare state means progressive taxation, social spending to strengthen the middle class and elevate the poor, and the regulation of corporate power, it does not offend Jeffersonian principles. What offends Jeffersonian principles is a government that “fortifies the conspiracies” of the rich and powerful (as Philadelphia republican George Logan put it in 1792), leaving ordinary people without protection from their strategies and combinations and their public disregard. By that standard, we have reached a new low point of Jeffersonian liberty. In Jefferson’s name, the government has promoted inequality, not restrained it. It has punished poor communities, weakened the middle class, and created a new ruling class that makes our old Loyalist enemies seem moderate and unjustly maligned. The people responsible for this certainly do have a philosophy of limited government. But their limited government is the Gilded Age version, a doctrine of elite self-defense. It is not the early American version, where the beginning of freedom is equality of productive resources, and limiting government is necessary to prevent that equality from being destroyed by wealthy elites.
In 2301, as we begin to discuss public opinion, we need to determine why our attitudes about history changes from time to time. The Diissent article makes a provocative claim the supporters of limits government have distorted what the founders actually thought about the role of government and the need for more equal distribution of wealth.

More Shifts in Attutudes about the Role of Government

Here's an interesting graphic from the Charlie Cook piece linked to below. After saying that they want government to do less the past two years, people are more likely to say that they want it to do more, which is what they were telling pollsters before the 2008 elections. What drives this shift?

One theory is that the public, and especially independents who are unattached to either political party, shifts its opinions based on recent events. Prior to 2008, the general perception was that government was not doing enough to reign in careless business practices that imposed harm on the public and they responded not only by telling pollsters they wanted to see more done by government, but voted - in 2006 and 2008 - for the party that would deliver.

After 2008 when the party they voted for did just that, they had second thoughts, decided government was doing too much, and voted Republican to reign government in. No surprise then that once Republicans announce that they intend to scale back government that people have second thoughts.

This is hardly the first time this has occurred and wont be the last.

How will Independents Vote in 2012?

Tough to know at this point of course, but students of elections are making preliminary analyses and seem to think the size of the independent vote will be small in 2012. Recent polls have suggested that the independents that voted Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2010 maye be shifting back again.

Chris Cillizza:

In American electoral politics, independent voters are the holy grail.

Thousands of hours are spent by political strategists and reporters (read: nerds) pouring over what makes them tick and how best to court them. (Both the Post’s Dan Balz and Fix mentor Charlie Cook have terrific recent pieces on what independents really want.)

The intensity over independents has ratcheted up in recent elections, as they have shown a propensity for wild swings — favoring Democrats by 18 points in the 2006 midterms only to support Republicans by a 19-point margin in 2010.

But, a look at exit polling data going all the way back to 1992 suggests that 2012 is far less likely to exhibit such a wide margin among independent voters as 2010 and 2006 did.
Dan Balz:

The president’s team long has believed that the greatest single cause of the Democrats’ poor showing last November was unhappiness with the economy, particularly among many independent voters, with concerns about federal spending a secondary factor. The president can’t afford to be seen as indifferent to something as sensitive as gasoline prices.

His position on the budget — urging bickering Democrats and Republicans to come to their senses — also reflects the knowledge that many independent voters dislike the political polarization and partisan bickering in Washington. Since the November elections, Obama has called more consistently for cooperation across party lines, and he showed during the lame-duck session his willingness to make deals with Republicans.
Charlie Cook:

One of my favorite questions tests public attitudes toward government’s role. The version that Hart and McInturff use gives respondents a choice between “Government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people” or “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” The order is alternated to prevent bias.

Back in 2007 and mid-2008, the government-should-do-more camp was a slight majority, in the 52-55 percent range; the government-doing-too-much position was in the 38-42 percent range. Starting a month after Lehmann Brothers collapsed in September 2008 and when credit markets seized up, the results tightened up. The more skeptical view of government pulled ahead in the September 2009 poll, 49 percent to 45 percent. In the national exit poll taken by various news organizations on Election Day 2010, the government-should-do-more response dropped to 38 percent, and the more antigovernment attitude soared to 56 percent.

The government-should-do-more camp is once again a majority.However, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll of 1,000 adults (including 200 by cellphone; overall margin of error plus or minus 3.1 points), conducted from February 24-28, 51 percent of respondents said the government-should do more and 46 percent said the government was doing too much. One could conclude that the antigovernment bandwagon certainly isn’t picking up speed.

More important—and I have to give NBC Political Director Chuck Todd credit for pointing this out to me—independents shifted significantly. In the February survey, 47 percent of independents said the government was doing too much, compared with 60 percent who said so last October. Independents who said the government should do more jumped 13 points, from 38 percent to 51 percent.

Recall Election Process Underway in Wisconsin

And it will be costly. Local governments have not budgetted for this thing. But it an irony considering that teh goal was to reduce spending:

Colleen Kottke:

With the ink still drying on a divisive collective bargaining law in Wisconsin, cash-strapped municipalities already facing cuts in state aid are bracing for the prospect of another fiscal thumping: recall elections.

"I only budgeted for two elections this year," said Fond du Lac County Clerk Lisa Freiberg. "I didn't budget for a recall election."

If successful, a flurry of petition drives targeting all 16 state senators eligible for recall — eight Democrats and eight Republicans — could leave municipalities scrambling to cover the unexpected expense.

Freiberg said a combination of staff salaries, computer equipment costs and printing expenses could cost Fond du Lac County more than $10,000 if Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond du Lac, who represents the 18th District, is called to face voters in a special election. That's roughly 30 percent of the city's election budget.

"We have to find a way to make things balance. Whether we have the money or not, we still have to run an election," Freiberg said. "If the petition is certified, I am anticipating a high voter turnout."

More Tort Reform on the Way: Loser Pays

In 2302, once we wrap up the executive branch we head into the judiciary. One of the more consistently controversial topics over the past several years has been tort reform, which can be defined as one many efforts to change the manner in which accusations of damage (torts) are addressed in the civil courts.

A few years back, caps were placed on the amount of damages which could be awarded by a jury in medical malpractice cases.Currently, the tort reform is focusing on "loser pays," the idea that losers in civil cases should pay the court costs of the winners. Advocates argue -- again -- that this would discourage frivolous suits from being filed. Opponents argue that this would scare off most any lawsuits, even those that are worthwhile, since there is never a guarantee that one is likely to prevail in a court case.

Houston attorney Paul Simon thinks this is an effort to further strip away legal rights.

links:
- American Tort Reform Association.
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
- Perryman Group analysis of malpractice reform.
- Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs.
- "Loser Pays" a Winner in the Texas Legislature?

- Point of Law: Loser Pays.

Is the Imperial President Inevitable?

The renewed expansion of presidential power has obviously driven the publication of several books, here's the latest. Interestingly the author reviewed some of the books we covered below.
















The book's reviewer wonders, as we have mentioned in class, whether the executive branch would inevitably become the dominant branch.

Republicans Negative, Democrats Positive in Describing Unions

From the Gallup Poll.

House Panel Votes to Strip E.P.A. of Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

From the NYT, more checking and balancing, and a general attempt to limit the power of the EPA.

A House subcommittee voted on Thursday to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases, chipping away at a central pillar of the Obama administration’s evolving climate and energy strategy.

The sharply partisan vote was preordained by the Republican takeover of the House. Republicans and their industry allies accuse the administration of levying taxes on traditional energy sources through costly environmental regulations, threatening the economic recovery and driving jobs overseas.

Many Republicans also argue that global warming is an unproven theory and that no action is needed to combat it, and they are backed by lobbies representing manufacturers; small businesses; agriculture; and the chemical, coal and oil industries; all of which have a big financial stake in hamstringing the E.P.A.

A parallel bill has been introduced in the Senate, although passage remains uncertain. President Obama has vowed to veto such legislation, which would undercut his administration’s policy of encouraging clean energy innovation with billions of dollars in support and rules that make it more costly for industry to keep spewing carbon dioxide.

Courting Scarborough

So how do people decide to run for office anyway?

Obamas Focus on Antibullying Efforts

From the NYT, an illustration of the president's unofficial power to use conferences and other mechanisms to spotlight attention to certain issues:

President Obama poked fun at his own big ears and funny name on Thursday, but all in the service of a serious subject as he and Michelle Obama opened a White House conference to spur antibullying efforts in schools and communities nationwide.

“If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up,” Mr. Obama told about 150 students, parents, teachers and advocates of prevention measures gathered in the East Room.

. . . The conference was an outgrowth of an effort among six cabinet agencies that began last August with a session at the Education Department to promote cooperation between government and nongovernment players, including the National PTA and MTV.

To disseminate information from the government, the president announced a new Web site, StopBullying.gov. In October, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent educators a letter explaining their legal duties to protect students from bullying based on race, ethnicity, disability or sexuality. In December, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who heads the administration’s efforts, sent guidance to state officials on resources and best practices.

Obama's Executive Orders

More for our upcoming 2302 discussion of executive power. A few links to information about President Obama's executive orders:

- National Archives: Lists for each year.
- National Archives: List by subject matter.
- White House Site: List of executive orders.

How Happy is Your Congressional District?

Find out here.

Who Runs the Republican Party Right Now?

For my 2301s as we start to discuss elections and parties. This author argues that the Republican Party is currently being defined by "state activists and governors, " not by potential presidential candidates. This may not serve the party well in 2012. It does introduce a major point we will hit when we discuss the decentralized nature of political parties in the United States. At any one point in time it can be tough to determine who or what is in charge, what the party truly stands for, and who made that decision.

From Along for the Ride:

With the 2012 class coalescing so slowly, the initiative has flowed elsewhere. On Capitol Hill and in the states, Republican legislators and governors empowered by the party’s historic gains in 2010 are advancing aggressive agendas with major 2012 implications. Rather than influencing those ideas, the potential GOP presidential candidates are mostly racing after them.

The best example is in Wisconsin, where newly elected Gov. Scott Walker is seeking to revoke most collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Every major Republican presidential hopeful has endorsed Walker’s initiative—which has galvanized conservatives but ignited volcanic resistance from organized labor. The eventual Republican nominee may still consider that issue a winner in 2012. But regardless, he (or she) has already locked onto a position that will allow union leaders to present a GOP White House victory as a threat to the very existence of organized labor. That could electrify rank-and-file mobilization.

Something similar has already happened with Hispanics. Most of the major 2012 candidates have embraced Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law (except for Huckabee and Romney, who hedged). Again, the eventual nominee might consider that to be a winning issue next year. But if Republicans choose an Arizona-style hard-liner, Democrats will undoubtedly find it easier to portray the GOP ticket as hostile to a burgeoning Hispanic population.

Ranking the Presidents

It's fun, it's controversial, and it makes you sound smart. We will dip into this in 2302 after the break. Crisis management seem to be the factor driving high approval ratings, which explains why Lincoln is almost always at the top of the list, along with George Washington and FDR.

- Wkipedia: Historical ratings of Presidents.
- C-Span: 2009 Survey of Presidential Leadership.
- LATimes comment on C-Span survey.
- HNN: Analysis of C-Span Survey.

Presidential Character

For my 2302 16 week classes: while you're on your break I'm putting together the lecture for when we get back. It'll touch on the "personal" nature of the presidency, and to the degree I can the Texas governor and local mayors etc..., as well as recent issues involving executive power and the activities of recent executive agencies.

Here are a few links to stories focused on presidential character, specifically James David Barber's work where he attempts to determine the basic character traits of the different people who have served as president. Given the degree to which the executive branch's power are granted to an individual, clearly the disposition of these individuals matters. The office, as we know, can ill afford to be held by someone inclined to use its powers for personal gain.

A few items for your perusal:

- Barber: The Presidential Character.
- One man's typology.
- Kinder: Presidential Character Revisited.
- A random lecture outline.
- Lecture slides on Barber.

The Texas Open Beaches Act and the Economic Recovery of Galveston

Recently the Texas Supreme Court weakened the Texas Open Beaches Act by making it more difficult for the state to acquire the land necessary to allow the public access to Texas beaches. This has caused the Texas Land Office to decide against replenishing Galveston beaches - especially on the west end - which may hamper the city's economy.

In response to requests, the Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the case.

- Branna v. State of Texas.
- Texas Land Office: Coastal Issues.
- AAS story.

Will the Attack on Collective Bargaining Make Democrats More Enthusiastic than Republicans in the 2012 Election?

We've been asking this in class recently, Nate Silver comments and give some evidence that it might.

Will Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act be Declared Unconstitutional?

Linda Greenhouse, again, thinks its a possibility. She also thinks Article VII of the Civil Rights Act is vulnerable.

Scalia's Irrelevance?

Linda Greenhouse has an interesting take on Justice Scalia's notoriously snooty dissenting opinions. They are a sign of a general lack of impact on the court:

So the question raised by Justice Scalia’s most recent intemperate display remains: what does this smart, rhetorically gifted man think his bullying accomplishes?

It’s a puzzle. But having raised the question, I will venture an answer. Antonin Scalia, approaching his 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, has cast a long shadow but has accomplished surprisingly little. Nearly every time he has come close to achieving one of his jurisprudential goals, his colleagues have either hung back at the last minute or, feeling buyer’s remorse, retreated at the next opportunity.

Disenfranchising Democrats

A few posts argue that Republican controlled legislatures are making it more difficult for groups that tend to vote Democrat to vote.

- The GOP's war on voting.
- Disenfranchising Democrats.
- Voter Disenfranchisement.

The three dominant techniques seem to be Voter ID laws, limiting the right of ex-felons to vote, and disenfranchising college students.

Congressional Hearing: “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response”

That's the full title of the hearing being held to day in the House Committee on Homeland Security.

While critics argue it plays on fears of Muslims, the committee's chairman, Peter King, argues that "Congressional investigation of Muslim American radicalization is the logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings which the Obama administration has been making in recent months.”

- NYT story here.

Raising Revenue, but not Taxes

Its a neat trick, and one the Texas Leg is attempting. From the Chron:

Lawmakers struggling to soften deep cuts that would be required in the face of a massive budget shortfall and no-new-taxes sentiment are looking at options such as deferring billions in state payments, speeding up tax collections, taking ownership of unclaimed property quicker and offering amnesty on penalties to laggard taxpayers.

"Right now, there is a tremendous amount of effort being invested in identifying new revenues that avoid being called a tax bill," said Dale Craymer of the business-based Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.

"Politically, a lot of members have pledged not to raise taxes," he said. "Obviously, members are seeing the impact of the budget proposal, and there's a desire to try and raise new revenue to protect the budget without violating the no-new-taxes pledge."

Houston City Council to Add Two New Seats

This has been a somewhat dramatic story, but Houston's City Council finally decided to add two new council seats in order to handle the city's growing population:

The Houston City Council will get two new seats this year, the most fundamental change to the top tier of municipal government since term limits were imposed two decades ago.

The council voted Wednesday to add a 16th and 17th seat, with members chosen by voters in the yet-to-be-drawn districts in November.

The council agreed when census numbers were released last month that the city's shifting population necessitated a redrawing of the map of council districts. But members had been split on whether to expand.

The city charter calls for the council to add two seats when Houston's population reaches 2.1 million. A 1979 referendum put that provision into the charter to codify an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice aimed at giving minority groups a stronger voice at the ballot box.

The 2010 Census count came up 549 people short. A city consultant concluded that the census had missed a spot — actually several spots - and Mayor Annise Parker reported that the count should have been 2,100,017.

Expansion opponents seized on the census number as proof that two new seats were not needed. Underlying the public discussion of whether Houston had hit the mark were elements of party affiliation, council-versus-mayor politics, budgetary considerations and defense of existing districts' turf.

How Cities Stir Revolution

Richard Florida argues that cities are, and have always been, incubators for revolution. What has recently been brewed in Cairo was once brewed in London and Boston:

Cities push us ever closer, enabling the rapid spread of new ideas. This accelerates the flow of new technology, increases the rate of new business formation, and makes for vibrant artistic and cultural scenes. And those very same mechanisms that unleash our innovative and artistic energies also make cities veritable cauldrons, in which political energy and activism are pressurized and brought to a boil.

Consider the Boston Massacre of 1770, the Paris Commune of 1871, the October Revolution of 1917 in St. Petersburg, the Chicago Convention in 1968, the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989, Cairo's Tahrir Square last month, and many more--all of them were events of global consequence, but they were each the product of individual cities. "These uprisings aren't just accidentally urban," noted economist Edward Glaeser. "They would be unthinkable at low densities. Cities connect agitators, like Sam Adams and John Hancock. Riots require a certain kind of urban congestion; police power must be overwhelmed by a sea of humanity."

Is the U.S. Becoming a Welfare State?

Daniel Indiviglio suggests that increasingly we are:

Uncle Sam has been aggressively increasing Americans' allowance recently. Government entitlement programs have grown to account for 35% of wages, according to a new analysis by Madeline Schnapp, director of macroeconomic research at investment research firm TrimTabs. The magnitude of government assistance has increased in large part due to high unemployment. But she argues that even when unemployment declines, we aren't like to see this percentage drop much.




He argues that this is likely to increase given the aging of the 78 million baby boomers.

Swanson on Presidential Power

Thanks to the intrepid student who pointed this article out to me. It's one man's take on the factors driving the expansion of presidential power. This argument should be familiar to my 2302's. Here's the intro:

Presidential power has been on a pathway of expansion beyond what the Constitution outlined, and what a government of, by, and for the people requires, since George Washington was president. That expansion, which hit the highway after World War II, got a turbo boost during the co-presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Some of the new powers that those two stole from Congress, the courts, the states, and us the people are being abused less severely in this new age of Obama; others, more so; but far more crucially, in a pattern followed by recent presidencies, all are being maintained, if not expanded, and thus more firmly cemented into place for future presidents to use. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you are likely to strongly oppose some major decisions of some future presidents.

The Last U.S. WWI Veteran Dies

Story in the NYT:

He didn't seek the spotlight, but when Frank Buckles outlived every other American who'd served in World War I, he became what his biographer called "the humble patriot" and final torchbearer for the memory of that fading conflict.

Buckles enlisted in World War I at 16 after lying about his age. He died Sunday on his farm in Charles Town, nearly a month after his 110th birthday. He had devoted the last years of his life to campaigning for greater recognition for his former comrades, prodding politicians to support a national memorial in Washington and working with friend and family spokesman David DeJonge on a biography.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is. In 2301, when we begin discussing public opinion, we will discuss the concept of a poltiical generation and the idea that certain ideas that drive democratic politics are unique to a particular group of individuals born at the same time - roughly - and are exposed to the same experiences. These ideas can die with that generation once they are all gone.

With Mr. Buckle's death, there is no living memory of WWI in the US any more. Its all textbook info from here on out. The same - of course - happened with the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and every other turning point in American history.

Pimco and Primary Dealers

This post is meant to add to my collection about the bond market and their role in the budgeting process

- Wikipedia: Pimco.
- Wikipedia: Primary Dealers.

The Texas Tea Party, the Budget, The Rainy Day Fund, and the Realities of Governing

The AAS outlines the dilemmas members of the Texas Leg's Tea Part Caucus are facing as they try to figure out what to do about the budget shortfall and the impact it is likely to have on education and health care in the state:

Like many who ran for and won seats in the Texas House last year, state Rep. Dan Huberty courted tea party activists in his district, promising to cut the fat out of the state's budget and hold the line on taxes.

But after two months in Austin, Huberty, a former Humble school board president, has seen that much of the budget fat that lawmakers are looking to cut could have a direct impact on the classrooms in the school district he led.

Huberty is one of 11 freshman Republicans who won seats in the House and then joined the Tea Party Caucus, a group of legislators pledged to control government spending and fight off tax increases. And though they remain opposed to tax hikes, the new lawmakers — like many of their veteran colleagues — have seen in recent weeks the difficulty of closing a budget gap with spending cuts alone.

The state is billions of dollars short of what it needs to continue current programs. To avoid tax increases, House and Senate leaders proposed budgets in January that would slash spending on public education and health care — cuts that would affect classrooms, nursing homes and colleges in just about every lawmaker's hometown.

"I think there were a lot of deer-in-the-headlight looks when the budget was laid out," Huberty said

... Now that they're coming out of the 60-day blackout period at the session's start, in which lawmakers are barred from taking up most legislation, freshman lawmakers are learning the difference between campaigning and governing, said James Henson, head of UT's Texas Politics Project .