Is Texas' economic growth due to economic policies or increased oil production?

One of the books available for 2306 argues that Texas' economic policies have created recent boom in jobs, and that other states should emulate them. But here's an observation that that states that have grown the most in recent years have oil based economies.

That's tough to replicate.

Is it possible that the Great Plains simply have better zoning laws, better governors, better entrepreneurial incentives, better schools, and better [other things that you typically associate with growth]? Yes, it is possible that the entire central time zone is magically gifted at matching people and jobs. It's also really, really unlikely. More likely is that the Great Plains have some of the positive aforementioned qualities -- Houston's zoning policies are exemplary, e.g. -- but most importantly, they did well because many of them shared something in common at the trans-state level: bountiful energy resources under their feet. 

Take the five or so states with fastest-growing oil production -- ND, TX, OK, CO, NM -- and draw their post-crash job performance against the rest of the country. This is the picture you get. Except for New Mexico, the four top oil-growth states fell lower and have climbed higher than the rest of the country.

States free to legalize marijuana

The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration will not preempt state laws:

The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain strict rules involving distribution of the drug.

In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys in all 50 states, deputy attorney general James M. Cole detailed the administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.

A Justice Department official said that Attorney General Eric Holder had called the governors of Colorado and Washington around noon on Thursday to inform them of the administration’s official stance.

 

A $52 billion dollar budget for spying

The latest revelation from the documents released by Edward Snowden. These has been classified for years.

U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

Here's a link to the document.

From Jack Goldsmith: Why Doesn’t President Obama Seek Congressional Approval for Syria?

Goldsmith headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the W Bush Administration. He questions whether an intervention in Syria is justified, and whether the president has the power to act on his own. This will be useful for our future look in 2305 about the extent of presidential war powers.

I have a pretty broad view of presidential power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization.  On that view, which is close to the past views of the Office of Legal Counsel, the planned use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.  There are many reasons why it is a stretch even under OLC precedents.  The main ones, as I alluded to a few days ago, are (1) neither U.S. persons nor property are at stake, and no plausible self-defense rationale exists; (2) the main non-self-defense U.S. interest that the Commander in Chief has invoked since the Korean War to justify unilateral uses of force – upholding the integrity of the U.N. Charter – appears (as Wells argued) to be disserved rather than served by a military strike in Syria; and (3) a Syria strike would push the legal envelope further even than Kosovo, the outer bound to date of presidential unilateralism, which at least implicated our most important security treaty organization commitments (NATO).  (Note that the USG was, as Wells pointed out, never able to publicly articulate a legal rationale for Kosovo.  In our more legalistic age 14 years later, such silence likely won’t be possible, but it also won’t be possible to rely on Kosovo as a constitutional precedent without explaining why the invasion was lawful at the time.)

The March on Washington Anniversary

If you aren't clear on what the March on Washington was about, click here.

It helped set the stage for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Kennedy's assassination is argued to have also been a motivating factor as was LBJ's asencion to the presidency and his desire to make his mark on history.

Is was one of a series of events that created a window of opportunity for the passage of civil rights bills. Ironically, the 50th anniversary coincides with recent court decisions that have rolled back the impact some of those bills.

The anniversary has given people the chance to speculate on the state of race relations in the country and how things have changed - or not - since the march. Click here for some charts highlighting these changes.

Charts showing economic conditions paint a diofferent picture than those focusedon political participation.

I'll post examples separately.

Republican congressmen predicts new preclearance map will be drawn

The Supreme Court threw out the old one this summer. Some argue that no new map will ever be drawn, which effectively nullifies the Voting Rights Act. But here's a pledge to fix it:

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said Monday that he will attempt to replace, by the end of the year, the portion of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Sensenbrenner’s comments came Monday at an event hosted by the Republican National Committee, commemorating the March on Washington.

Sensenbrenner said he wants to fix the law so that it is immune to court challenges.


“The first thing we have to do is take the monkey wrench that the court threw in it, out of the Voting Rights Act, and then use that monkey wrench to be able to fix it so that it is alive, well, constitutional and impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the usual suspects,” Sensenbrenner said.

Members of Congress insists Obama seek congressional approval in order to strike Syria

From The Hill:

More than 100 lawmakers, including 16 Democrats, have signed a letter that says President Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress.

A total of 107 lawmakers had signed the letter as of 3 p.m. Wednesday, highlighting bipartisan interest and growing momentum in ensuring a role for Congress in any decision to use force in Syria.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” states the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).

The Speaker of the House wants a case to be made for intervention:

In a letter to the president, Boehner said the briefings key lawmakers have received so far have failed to assuage their concerns about the administration's strategy.

“I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy," Boehner wrote.

He stopped short, however, of demanding a congressional vote, even as more than 107 House members have signed a letter to the president making the case for such an authorization.

Boehner hinted that he supports retaliation following allegations Bashar Assad's forces used chemical weapons, saying the president's response had implications for America's “credibility” beyond Syria, notably in Iran. But he asked no fewer than 14 pointed questions about the long-term goals of a military response, notably regarding the risks of empowering Islamist militants and drawing Assad allies Iran and Russia into the fight.

Some House members argues that an attack would violate the War Powers Resolution:

House members demanding congressional approval for a military attack against Syria are making detailed legal arguments that ignoring Congress would violate the War Powers Resolution (WPR).

Dozens of House members are now on record as insisting that Congress must authorize military action against Syria, including more than 100 who plan to deliver a letter to the White House on Thursday.

That letter argues that the Obama administration is stretching its authority under the WPR, which was passed in 1973 and defines the circumstances under which the executive branch can commit military assets overseas.

Under the WPR, the president can "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities" pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or under a national emergency "created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces."

In the letter to be sent Thursday, members argue that Obama has already weakened that standard in regard to Libya. It notes that in 2011, the administration's Office of Legal Counsel said Obama can rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the "national interest" by conducting limited military operations in Libya.

The pros and cons of war with Syria

I'll post more of these, but here's something to start a class discussion.

Voter ID Law implemented for the first time in the Houston region in Galveston

There disagreement over whether the law had an impact.

From the Houston Chronicle:

The first election in the Houston region conducted under the new Texas voter ID law went off without a hitch Tuesday, but officials say that doesn't necessarily mean there would be no problems in a statewide general election.

Only two out of 24 provisional ballots cast in a Galveston school district special election related to voter identification, said Bill Sargent, the Galveston county clerk's chief deputy for elections. "There is no way of knowing whether this is indicative of an election statewide, but if this trend continues, it means that voter ID is not a big deal," Sargent said.

With only 45 votes remaining to be counted late Tuesday, a measure authorizing the school district to spend money to comply with the Texas "Robin Hood" school financing law was leading 1,675 in favor and 36 opposed.
Sargent's view was disputed by the presidents of the Galveston County chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the city of Galveston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
"It's just another obstacle to minorities being able to exercise their right to vote," said Anna Olivares, president of LULAC Council 151. Olivares and Galveston NAACP President David Miller said they had learned through first-hand experience how difficult it can be for low-income or non-English speaking voters to obtain a voter ID.
The election is only the third in the state to be conducted under the voter ID law, the subject of a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit alleging that it intentionally discriminates against low-income and minority voters by making it more difficult for them to vote.

The Justice Department sues Texas over voting rights for minorities.

From the NYT:

The Obama administration on Thursday escalated its efforts to restore a stronger federal role in protecting minority voters in Texas, announcing that the Justice Department would become a plaintiff in two lawsuits against the state.

The Justice Department said it would file paperwork to become a co-plaintiff in an existing lawsuit brought by civil rights groups and Texas lawmakers against a Texas redistricting plan. Separately, the department said, it filed a new lawsuit over a state law requiring voters to show photo identification.

In both cases, the administration is asking federal judges to rule that Texas has discriminated against voters who are members of a minority group, and to reimpose on Texas a requirement that it seek “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making any changes to election rules. In June, the Supreme Court removed the requirement by striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.

This is likely to last a while. Its a great example of the cultural and political conflict common between the state and the national government. This specific conflict stems from the weakening of the Voting Rights Act that followed the recently decided case of Shelby v. Holder. 2306's especially should take note.

The NAACP has joined the federal lawsuit.

Where is Syria anyway?

If we're going to war with it, we should at least know where it is. That's just common courtesy.

The Magna Carta to come to Houston

Thanks to the student who sent this in.

A date is not given, but it will come to the Museum of Natural Science sometime soon, just before its 800the birthday!

2305's will dig through portions of the document soon.

Does a strong military suppress democratization?

I think the following comparison between prospects in Egypt and Tunisia suggest that it does.

W]hatever dangers Tunisia now faces, there is virtually no possibility of a military coup followed by a state-sponsored war on the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Egypt. And this is so because of what may be the most salient difference between the two countries, at least in regard to their political trajectory: Egypt has an overwhelmingly politicized and intrusive army, and Tunisia does not. “None of the generals want a coup d’état,” says Adnen Hasneoui, an activist close to the ruling Ennahda party. “The only group which could carry out a coup would be the national police, and Ben Ali” — the former dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali — “designed the organization chart so that the police don’t have the power.” Indeed, Ben Ali’s inadvertent gift to Tunisia was to keep the military weak — Tunisia has only 27,000 very poorly equipped troops — and to exercise firm control over the Interior Ministry police.

From the Pew Research Center: How Millennial Are You?

If you are in my class, you are likely to be a millennial - that is if you are between 33 and 10.

Here's a quiz that sees where you stand on issues and whether you think like a millennial.

Will the millennial generation keep the republic?

Too early to tell really, but this article suggests that those born between 1982 and 2003 are committed to public service, just not politics or government.

In their landmark books on Millennials, the sociologists Morley Winograd and Michael Hais compare young Americans today to other great “civic generations” that cycle through U.S. history every eight decades, starting with the Founding Fathers and including the generation that elected Abraham Lincoln and of course the Greatest Generation that won World War II. Raised in troubled times, “as adults, they focus on resolving social challenges and building institutions,” Winograd and Hais write in their recent Millennial Momentum. The authors believe Millennials have the makings to be the next great generation.

The trouble is that Millennials believe traditional politics and government (especially Washington) are the worst avenues to great things. They are more likely to be social entrepreneurs, working outside government to create innovative and measurably successful solutions to the nation’s problems, even if only on a relatively small scale. One is Matt Morgan, a Kennedy School student, who launched a website that helps readers respond to articles with political action. “There are so many problems Washington can’t fix that we can,” he says. Another is his classmate Sarah Estill, who wants to provide police departments with technology to fighting crime. “For my generation there are more ways we can effect change than in the past -- more tools in the toolbox,” she said. “Why not use all of them?” A generation ago, government had a monopoly on public service. To Millennials, the world is filled with injustice and need, but government isn’t the solution. They have apps for that.

The author speculates on the consequences of this shift, while another suggests that this is just kids being kids.

This does raise a good questions though - what commitment does - or should - one generation have to the governing and political institutions established by the previous generation? Is the republic worth keeping? Can better systems be developed? How do we know.

This brings attention to the concept of a political generation - which we will discuss more later this semester. Political change tends not to happen because people change their minds, but because different generations emerge that have different opinions on issues while older generations - and ideas - die off.

Please submit answers to the written assignments through blackboard

Do not send them to me as a comments on this site - thanks.

From the vaults: Dictatorships and Double Standards

I stumbled across this 1979 article from Jeane Kirkpatrick - an early neo-conservative who would work in the Reagan Administration.

In it she criticizes the foreign policy of the Carter Administration, but does so by making some interesting comments about what types of nations are more likely to turn democratic and why (leftist or rightist) as well as what preconditions are necessary for democracy to be sustained.

Her principle criticism seems to be that we over-estimate our ability to establish democratic governments:

Although most governments in the world are, as they always have been, autocracies of one kind or another, no idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances. This notion is belied by an enormous body of evidence based on the experience of dozens of countries which have attempted with more or less (usually less) success to move from autocratic to democratic government. Many of the wisest political scientists of this and previous centuries agree that democratic institutions are especially difficult to establish and maintain-because they make heavy demands on all portions of a population and because they depend on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions.

Here's some text relevant to this inquiry, I think its worth a read.

Although most governments in the world are, as they always have been, autocracies of one kind or another, no idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances. This notion is belied by an enormous body of evidence based on the experience of dozens of countries which have attempted with more or less (usually less) success to move from autocratic to democratic government. Many of the wisest political scientists of this and previous centuries agree that democratic institutions are especially difficult to establish and maintain-because they make heavy demands on all portions of a population and because they depend on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions.

Fulfilling the duties and discharging the functions of representative government make heavy demands on leaders and citizens, demands for participation and restraint, for consensus and compromise. It is not necessary for all citizens to be avidly interested in politics or well-informed about public affairs–although far more widespread interest and mobilization are needed than in autocracies. What is necessary is that a substantial number of citizens think of themselves as participants in society’s decision-making and not simply as subjects bound by its laws. Moreover, leaders of all major sectors of the society must agree to pursue power only by legal means, must eschew (at least in principle) violence, theft, and fraud, and must accept defeat when necessary. They must also be skilled at finding and creating common ground among diverse points of view and interests, and correlatively willing to compromise on all but the most basic values.

In addition to an appropriate political culture, democratic government requires institutions strong enough to channel and contain conflict. Voluntary, non-official institutions are needed to articulate and aggregate diverse interests and opinions present in the society. Otherwise, the formal governmental institutions will not be able to translate popular demands into public policy. 

In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government’s effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government. Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse. American history gives no better grounds for believing that democracy comes easily, quickly, or for the asking. A war of independence, an unsuccessful constitution, a civil war, a long process of gradual enfranchisement marked our progress toward constitutional democratic government. The French path was still more difficult. Terror, dictatorship, monarchy, instability, and incompetence followed on the revolution that was to usher in a millennium of brotherhood. Only in the 20th century did the democratic principle finally gain wide acceptance in France and not until after World War II were the principles of order and democracy, popular sovereignty and authority, finally reconciled in institutions strong enough to contain conflicting currents of public opinion.

She goes on to scold the Carter Administration for over stating their ability to promote democracy and suggests we tamper our expectations about what we can accomplish. I like the story she tells for self interested reason since I adopt a gradualist approach to the development of governments in general, especially what we have in the US. 

Will democracy take root in the Middle East?

The Dish flags a few studies that suggest it will not.

Both 2305 and 2306 begins with a look at why these introductory classes are required and I try to make the point that it has a lot to do with the notion that an educated and engaged population is more likely to sustain a democratic republic than one that is not. Keeping a republic is one thing, establishing one is another, and it is much more difficult to accomplish.

A special discipline within political science focuses on the factors that allow for nations to democratize. Writing in Reason (a libertarian magazine that some of you might find worth a look, at least since we will be discussing libertarianism soon enough) Robert Bailey digests the research and sees four principle factors that help determine whether a specific country may be a proper candidate for democratization.

The lack of these factors leads the authors to predict that the countries that recently went through the Arab Spring will likely slip back into autocracy.

Youth, or more precisely, fertility rates: The younger the population, the less likely a nation might transition into a democracy. The older the population, the lower the fertility rate. Why does this matter? Because fertility rates are taken to be an indication of the amount of control people have over their lives. Older people are better able to challenger autocratic structures and support their replacement with democratic ones. The median ages in the middle east are far lower than those in the US and Western Europe.

This thought sticks out. Gender matter as well: Democratic countries with large populations of young males are more likely to become dictatorships than those with smaller populations.

History: None of the middle eastern nations at issue has experience as democracies. Since the 1960s, the middle east has become more autocratic. There is no experience of self rule nor memory of working within institutions that allow for representation.

Income: The wealthier the nation, the more likely they will become democratic, and then sustain that democratic system. Studies suggest that $6,000 per capita income is the threshold. Above that line democracies take hold and are sustained, beneath it they do not and are not. None of the nations at issue have incomes above that level.

Complexity: This is a fancy term that refers to the "range of social, political, and economic interests" that exist in a nation. The fewer the interests, the easier it is for one person and his supporters to impose their will on a population by establishing an autocratic government. Complex societies are more difficult to control.

The author also suggest that this is related to the level of violence that occurred in a revolution against an autocracy. The greater level of violence, the greater chance that social institutions have been destroyed, which creates an easier opportunity for an autocratic system to develop. Opposing forces have been eliminated.

This might be worth a class discussion - you call.

Written Assignment #2

This should be a little bit more difficult than the first assignment, but not by much.

Locate and purchase the book assigned for the class. Give a rough outline of its contents. What is the book about? What general point does the author seem to make in it?

You assignment for week 4 will be to give me a paper proposal based on some aspect of the book's content. The more work you do now, the easier it will be to get a good proposal together.

Written Assignment #1

I want all students to prove to me you know hos to send an assignment through BlackBoard.

Find the first assignment and send me a quick hello. If you'd like to introduce yourself, please do.

If you get this to me before the due date - which you will find on both blackboard and the class syllabus - you will receive a 100. If you get it to me late you will receive a 75.

The Break is Now Over - The Fall Semester Begins Tomorrow

I'll start posting material relevant to the class in just a few moments.

New students should visit this site regularly. You'll find assignments here as well as news items we'll cove in class. I'm open for whatever suggestions you have about what's worth our time.