Everyday Politics Blog

Obama in Copenhagen: The Domestic/Foreign Policy divide

By David Watkins

In any American Politics Textbook, the distinction between the foreign policy and domestic policy is noted, usually with regard to the president's relatively greater power in the arena of foreign policy. This is, of course, true as a general rule, as anyone following American politics in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11th will surely recall. But sometimes the picture is less clear.
 
Consider climate change politics. In the 1990's, President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol, a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, in 1997 the Senate passed a resolution by the astounding vote of 95-0 indicating they would not entertain ratification until a number of changes (many of which Clinton agreed with) were made--most involving commitments from China and other developing countries to reduce emissions or restrict future emissions growth. Any hope for progress on this issue halted in 2001 when George Bush unsigned the Kyoto protocol and withdrew the United States from negotiations for eight years.

President Obama has made a significant re-entry into global climate change politics a significant part of his early agenda. He strongly supported a "cap and trade" bill which would institute a scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill has passed the House of Representatives, but has not yet been considered in the Senate, which will almost certainly prove much more difficult terrain.
 
But Obama is not waiting for the Senate to act. In advance of an important international summit on Climate Change, Obama is making strong commitments on behalf of the United States:

At the international climate meetings in Copenhagen next month, Mr. Obama will tell the delegates that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, officials said.

The figures reflect targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets. 

 
One might plausibly argue that Obama is getting ahead of himself here: he's making a commitment that requires the cooperation of the Senate, where a number of necessary votes have, by all accounts, yet to be secured. But Obama is perhaps sending a message to two groups with this commitment: to Congress, and the Senate in particular, that he's making this an international and significant priority, and to the International community, that he's commited to making climate change mitigation a priority. If the latter message is well recieved, that of course makes it more likely that the substantive goal of the policy will be reached, as climate change mitigation requires a high level of global cooperation. It will be a huge challenge, but as economist John Quiggin notes, there's more reasons for optimism around the world than there have been in a long time.

OBAMA AND THE COURTS

By Scott Lemieux

In my last post, I discussed the possibility that the Obama administration could represent a new, "reconstructive" era in American politics.   The political scientist Keith Whittington has noted that one characteristic of Reconstructive presidencies is clashes with the judicial branch.   Jefferson initiated substantial reductions in the power of federal courts he perceived as hostile, Jackson and Lincoln essentially ignored unfavorable Supreme Court rulings, FDR floated a court-packing plan to overcome a judiciary that struck down much of his first term's legislative agenda, and Regan promised to appoint judges hostile to many of the landmark rulings of previous Courts.  

The reason these patterns recur, of course, is that reconstructive presidents generally enter office facing a judiciary dominated by members affiliated with the previous regime.   This is, in substantial measure, true of the Obama administration --  before the retirement of Justice Souter 7 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court were Republican nominees, and the federal courts as a whole tilt strongly towards conservative Republicans.   And yet -- despite Democratic control by both branches -- Obama has moved more slowly on judicial appointments than his predecessor (who also faced an opposition party determined to slow the flow of nominees onto the courts.)

There are several explanations.   One is that Obama simply will not be a reconstructive president.    Another is that he may see fights as the federal courts as better resting on the back-burner until the debate over health care legislation has been resolved.    A final -- and to me, perhaps most convincing -- explanation is simply that the stakes for judicial appointments is less than it was for some previous presidents.   As Whittington notes, the increase of judicial power (that makes the kind of outright defiance more common in the 19th century all but inconceivable today)  has its source in the deliberate empowerment of the courts by the political branches.   One result of this is that the Supreme Court, while theoretically more powerful than it's ever bin, has avoided the kind of direct challenges to central parts of a current regime's agenda that the Court last tried during FD'Rs administration.    The Court's Raich v. Gonzales decision seems to signal that what some had called the Court's "federalist revolution" would be limited only to legislation of the most marginal importance.    Courts may be a low priority for Obama because he doesn't see them as a threat to the most important parts of his legislative agenda -- and despite the current Republican majority on the Court he may well be right. 

Youth Voting in Off-Year Elections

Michael Xenos

As many readers no doubt know, there are some fairly high profile gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey set to culminate this week, along with many other elections at various levels around the country of course. (For a convenient run-down on these races, try Ron Gunzburger’s Politics1 site, which is also a great general resource for basic information about any race, including links to candidate websites – see the 50 states page.) Given the increases in youth voting seen over recent history and the key role young voters played in last year’s elections, a lot of folks are wondering what kinds of patterns in youth voting we’ll see this week. 

The researchers over at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), who provide superb reports on political participation among young people strike a somewhat optimistic chord in an advisory on the VA and NJ gubernatorial races recently posted to the homepage their website.  Looking back at the last three presidential races, for example, the trend is toward growth in youth voting in both states.  In New Jersey, the 18-29 year old turnout rate went from 41.4% in 2000, to 51.2% in 2004, and 53.0% in 2008. The comparable rates for Virginia were 47.2% (2000), 43.1% (2004), and 58.7% (2008). As CIRCLE director Peter Levine points out in the same advisory, however, turnout usually declines in off-year elections as compared to presidential election years. Indeed, CIRCLE data show national youth turnout in midterm elections as typically ranging between 25 and 20%. Nevertheless, the trend data available seem to point to a potential for youth turnout to continue to rise as compared to previous election years of the same kind.

Others are more skeptical. For example, in a recent Op-Ed column, E.J. Dionne speculates that large proportions of the young people who became energized by the excitement of last year’s historic election may virtually disappear this week, and in the upcoming midterm elections as well. Quoting Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, this year seems to already be bringing "a dramatically lower level of turnout from Obama surge voters." The column also features quotes from some interviews that Lake has conducted with young Obama surge voters, which are disturbingly telling: "One of them said, 'I'm tired of politics, I need a rest.' A second said, 'When is Obama up again?' The third said, 'I don't like what any of them are doing in Washington, opposing Obama's agenda.' "

As students in American Government courses, and likely members of the youth voting demographic, what do you think will happen in the next couple of election cycles?  Do you think that the Obama surge will meet with a notable decline, with younger voters who entered the political process last year getting “tired” of politics and staying home on Election Day?  Or, do you agree with those, like the authors of the book Millennial Makeover, who think that today’s younger generation is distinctive in its upbeat, optimistic, and more participatory outlook, and is poised to continue taking a greater role in American politics?  Most important, do you plan to vote?

Are We Entering A New Era?

By Scott Lemieux

In his classic book The Politics Presidents Make, the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek argues that the basic structure of American politics can be broken down into a remarkably small number of eras:  The Jeffersonian (1800-1828), the Jacksonian (1828-1860), the Republican (1860-1932), the New Deal (1932-1980), and the Reagan Revolution (1980-?).    Once we understand the basic politics of a period, we can see presidents facing recurring political challenges that are comparable to a number of past presidents.  Skowronek uses four categories, based on 1)the health of the dominant regime and 2)the president's relationship to that regime:

For the most recent political era, Reagan was the reconstructive president, challenging existing political and constitutional understandings with substantial success. Both Presidents Bush were "affiliated" presidents, articulating and extending the politics initiated by Reagan. (Except for the fact that he won re-election, George W. Bush is comparable to Lyndon Johnson, in that the regime reached its apotheosis under his administration, but in many respects the dominant regime's underlying political coalition collapsed.) Clinton -- who Skowronek, remarkably, predicted could face a serious impeachment treat just after his re-election -- was a "pre-emptive" president, attempting to keep a minority political coalition together while collaborating in important respects with the dominant regime.)

Which brings us to an interesting question -- does the Obama administration represent a new political era?    In a sense, the success (or lack thereof) of his proposed health care reform represents the first major test.   If major legislation reflecting a different understanding of the role of government passes, combined with such factors as some clashes with federal courts still largely under the control of the Reagan regime and electoral validation in 2012, we may in retrospect see the 2008 election as pivotal.  Conversely, if Obama cannot secure re-election and his legislative accomplishments are more limited or less durable than might be expected, the Obama administration could be seen as a failed pre-emptive president in an overwhelmingly Republican era.     Which do you see as more likely?    

I'll Bring Home the Bacon. Fry it Up in a Pan.

When I was in college, I signed up for an internship to work in the office of the Mayor of Binghamton, New York. My job was to answer mail from the constituency who complained about potholes in the streets or the drunks who poured out of local bars and puked on their front lawns. The mayor took these letters very seriously, so I put a lot of time into writing sensible and caring responses.

It was a fascinating experience. I learned that politicians must be concerned with keeping their constituency happy, and since then I've never hesitated to write an e-mail to my representative when I disagree with his voting record. These sorts of hands-on experiences are an excellent way to gain insight into politics that can't be gained from a textbook. I hope that you take advantage of such opportunities at your school.

As part of the internship, I had to discuss certain assigned readings with a professor and complete a research paper. My paper was on the governing style of women, since the mayor was a woman. At that time, there were very few women in government, so the paper consisted of mostly case studies and theoretical work. Twenty years later, I'm still pleased that I received an A for that paper.

Since then, more women have leadership positions in government. We have Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotormayor on the Supreme Court. There are 17 women in the Senate and and 75 women in the House of Representatives.

While women still do not comprise 50 percent of Congress, their numbers have increased substantially enabling researchers to gain further insight into their governing style. Recent research finds that women congressional leaders are more likely to sponsor pork-barrel legislation than male congressional leaders. The authors conclude:

We find that congresswomen secure roughly 9 percent more spending from federal discretionary programs than congressmen. This amounts to a premium of about $49 million per year for districts that send a woman to Capitol Hill. Finally, we find that women’s superiority in securing particularistic benefits does not hurt their performance in policymaking: women also sponsor more bills and obtain more cosponsorship support for their legislative initiatives than their male colleagues.

Pork-barrel legislation are laws that contain a benefit that goes directly to one location. It might mean funding to build a bridge in a community or to support a local army base. The people in the community like it, because it provides jobs for locals. Congressional leaders like to pass these bills, because they can go back home and tell the people who vote for them, their constituency, that they took care of them. Their tax money is going to benefit them and not somebody thousands of miles away. 

So, why are women more likely to sponsor pork-barrel legislation? Other research may provide the answer.

One of the authors that I read for that internship so many years ago was David Mayhew. Mayhew argues that all congressmen engage in three activities: credit-claiming, advertising, and position-taking. (My undergraduate mnemonic device for memorizing those activities was CAP.) These activities are necessary to get reelected. 

Some speculate that women have to work harder than men to get re-elected and therefore have to spend more time taking credit for sponsoring legislation with their constituency. They can tell their constituency that they were responsible for that bridge, which they use every day and was built by contractors in the community. Men have to take credit for legislation also, but they just don't have to do it as much as women do.

Is this a positive development? Many people believe that pork-barrel legislation is not the best use of government money. On the other hand, people reward congressional leaders that sponsor this legislation by re-electing them. People like pork-barrel legislation when it means benefits for themselves; they just don't like it when other people get it.

Do you believe that women have a different leadership style than men? Is it important to increase the number of women in Congress? Will women change their governing style if they don't have to work so hard to be re-elected and if there is a larger group of women in Congress?

Partisanship and Media

Michael Xenos

Recently there has been a fair amount of buzz surrounding White House comments about Fox News, including statements about whether it is a “real” news network and the extent to which administration officials would treat it as such.  The conflict has provided a veritable treasure trove of grist for pundits on the right and left, and it has also drawn a fair amount of interest from regular citizens interested in politics. An interesting sampling of the latter can be found in the comment feed associated with a recent New York Times article on the issue.

One of the benefits of a class such as the one you’re taking lies in its ability to put things like this in context.  Indeed, that’s one of the points of this blog as well.

If you were in a history class, you might be reminded of the various other presidents from earlier eras that have taken similarly aggressive stances toward the media, typically with poor results (e.g. Grant, McKinley, FDR, Nixon, see here for a discussion of this). In a political science course, however, perhaps the most important contextual information comes from research on the increasingly partisan nature of media consumption. In other words, comments from current administration officials may be similar to historical statements like Spiro Agnew’s famous quip about “nattering nabobs of negativism," but there is a new wrinkle in the sense that the current comments belong to a qualitatively different media environment with respect to news programming and political partisanship.

As Laura mentioned in a previous post, scholars have suggested that one of the byproducts of our new media environment is that people have much more control over what they watch, listen to, and read than they once did, and this has implications for how the media and politics are related.  Think about your parents or grandparents for example, and how they had to walk across the room to turn a heavy, clunky knob in order to change the channel on the television.  The walking was strenuous, but don’t feel too bad for them. They typically had only 3 or 4 channels to choose from. In contrast, today we have a practically unlimited variety of content to choose from at any hour of the day or night. The political implications of this are that many people now exercise a fair amount of filtering with respect to how and where they get political news – liberals can watch MSNBC and read the Daily Kos while conservatives can watch Fox and read Hot Air. (The two blogs mentioned here represent the most influential liberal and conservative blogs, respectively, as measured by political scientist David Karpf’s useful Blogosphere Authority Index.)  As far as cable television news goes, one is reminded of Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar’s research on partisan preferences for news content, which uses a clever experiment to demonstrate that there are clear differences in how liberals and conservatives react to identical headlines and news stories, based on which network they are attributed to.  (For the original paper, click here; for a more accessible write up in the Washington Post, click here.)  At the same time, researchers like Princeton’s Markus Prior suggest that an even bigger trend is for many people to exercise their newfound range of content choice to avoid political content altogether in favor of more entertaining programming.

So, it may be useful to think about some of these trends as you hear or perhaps even participate in more partisan discussions of these matters.  Do you see variation in the amount and kinds of political media consumed by you and your friends based on their levels of interest in politics and partisan leanings?  What implications does this have for how you think about the current flap between the White House and Fox News?

Making Sense of Public Opinion on Health Care Reform

Michael Xenos

While there are many issues facing the government right now, health care reform is undoubtedly an item near the top of the policy agenda. As Scott’s recent post points out, major reform efforts such as those surrounding health care right now are especially difficult in a political system such as ours.  Nevertheless, as the discussion on this morning’s Meet the Press shows, supporters of reform like White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett believe there is strong momentum on health care reform and we seem to be nearing what host David Gregory calls “brass tacks time” on the issue.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In news coverage of the health care debate, which according to one estimate is about 10% of all news stories right now, we hear a lot about public opinion on health care reform. Opponents are quick to tout polls that paint a picture of rising opposition to the reform packages being considered in Congress, while supporters point to majority approval of various key provisions of the plans under discussion.

Informed consumers of public opinion polls typically make sense of individual results by looking to factors such as whether the poll is based on a scientifically sound random sampling technique, what population is being sampled (for example, the general public or “likely voters,” which may be defined in a number of ways), the specifics of question wordings, and other factors known to have a strong influence on the numbers and their implications. For complicated issues such as health care reform, it is also helpful to seek more in-depth analysis provided by public opinion experts. In the past, this kind of analysis was difficult to find.  Now, however, there are a variety of resources available online, such as pollster.com and others I’ll mention below, that offer valuable insights for understanding the flood of sometimes conflicting and confusing poll numbers we are seeing in the media.

On the health care issue, for example, the non-partisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently issued an informative report on health care opinion. (Readers of one of my previous posts will be relieved to know that these researchers are keenly aware of the contemporary difficulties surrounding telephone polling, and regularly integrate cell-phone users into their surveys.) Their report provides a detailed account of the mixed picture created by support for specific provisions alongside opposition to broader packages.  By way of explanation, they suggest that “[t]he disconnect between support for specific elements of health care legislation and overall opposition to the proposals in Congress appears to be driven by a lack of understanding about what is being proposed, the complexity of the topic and declining trust in Congress.” Indeed, in a separate survey probing what the public knows about various issues in politics, the Pew researchers found that only 56% of their respondents recognized “the public option” as a part of the current health care reform debate (as opposed to pertaining to Energy and the environment, Banking reform, or Unemployment), with 33% confessing that they didn’t know what issue it was related to and 11% incorrectly guessing one of the other options.  Polling expert David Moore further emphasizes this aspect of public opinion on health care in a post on his blog, SkepticalPollster.com.  In discussing some of CNN’s polling on the issue, Moore suggests that “the dysfunctional results can be found in a question that was not reported on CNN’s website, politicalticker, but was posted in its archive. When asked how much they knew about the details of Obama’s health care proposals, almost six in ten respondents admitted that they knew little to nothing – after having just opined about them during the previous twenty-minute survey. Only 11 percent said they knew “a good deal.””

Hopefully, as the policy process moves forward, more Americans will become more informed about this major policy issue.  Conventional wisdom tells us that when that happens we will see opinion become more stable and less confusing. In the meantime, we should be aware of this important facet of opinion on health care and take this as a good opportunity to think and talk about key aspects of public opinion in American Government courses.

Madison and Health Care

By Scott Lemieux

One of our fellow political scientists over at The Monkey Cage discusses Thomas Friedman's diagnosis of why the American political system seems unable to address major problems (most notably global warming.)  He identifies five potential reasons:

1. “the wild excess of money in politics”
2. Gerrymandering of congressional districts
3. the 24 news cycle
4. a permanent presidential campaign
5. the emergence of a blogosphere that “at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world” (I’m going to assume he’s talking about The Monkey Cage in the former part of that quote).

Tucker has a good account of some of the work political scientists have done on these questions.   I, however, was struck by the omission of what strikes me as the most obvious explanatory variable: the structure of American political institutions.   For better or worse, the system was designed so that major legislation was going to be the exception rather than the rule, and this is exactly how it's worked in practice.     

Relatedly, Friedman refers to the saying that the American system was "designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots."   This is essentially a restatement of Madison's famous argument in Federalist #51 that "[i]f angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."   As the first version suggests, Madison's statement is sometimes interpreted to mean that he didn't see political leadership as being especially important, but this is a misreading.    More accurately, Madison wanted to structure the government that couldn't do too much damage if bad leaders where at the helm, and his structure was an ingenious means to that end.   But it's the other implication of these structures that creates the dilemma that concerns Friedman: structures that make it hard for bad people to enact policies also make it hard for all political leaders to enact major reform policies, even if there's something like a consensus that the status quo is unacceptable.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing, of course, depends on your political values.   But it's not surprising that the American government has been slower to respond to problems like global warming than other comparable democracies.  

Hecklers From the Back Benches

Two days ago, President Obama gave a speech on health care reform. At one point in the speech, he said that there were many misconceptions about his plan out there. He said that there would be no "death panels" for old people to determine whether or not they should receive expensive, life-saving procedures. He also said that this plan would not cover illegal aliens. From the audience, Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina shouted out "You lie!"

I was watching Obama's speech on CNN's website and I had Twitter up on another window. I use Twitter to follow various political pundits and activists. Their reaction to Wilson's remark was instantaneous. Within seconds, someone had identified who he was. Minutes later, his wikipedia page was changed. One hour later, prominent bloggers had identified who his opponent was in the upcoming election and called for donations to his campaign. Two days later, that opponent has received campaign donations for more than $700,000.

As a scholar of Internet politics, I am fascinated by the dialogue that occurs on the Internet, as well as the speed that information flows and the ability to form rapid responses. Some have said that Twitter has been used most effectively by conservatives. The Joe Wilson incident certainly shows that liberals are also using Twitter effectively.

On a morning news show this morning, one pundit said that Joe Wilson's shout demonstrates that the weakening respect for the presidency, which began in the Clinton administration and has only accelerated. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Nixon and the Watergate scandal was a serious blow to the presidency. No president will ever win the awe and respect of the public and the media as the pre-Nixon presidents.

The Wilson incident also brings up the question of how Congress should behave. Traditionally, the Congress in the United States has always been formal. Congressional representatives refer to each other as the "Fine Senior Senator from New York" and decorum is maintained during discussion periods. Legislative bodies in other countries are much more boisterous. There are shouts, heckles, and cheers from the backbenches during speeches and debates. Here's a sample of a debate in England's Parliament:

As a result of a two word shout from Congressman Wilson, he's going to face a tough fight in November and he's had to apologize to the president for his behavior. It was shocking by American standards, but it's commonplace elsewhere.

Do you think that Wilson's comments were disrespectful and disruptive of intellectual debate? Do you think he should receive censure from Congress? Or do you think that Congress should start behaving more like Parliament? Is there something very democratic about those shouts from the backbenches and the questioning of presidents and prime ministers?

Senate Vacancies (again) and the contours of Federalism

by David Watkins

Last year (Here, and again here) I wrote about the puzzling politics of replacing Senators mid-term, Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all left their Senate seats for the executive Branch. A little known quirk of the American political system became quite prominent: quite unlike the House of Representatives (where seats remain vacant until a special election is held), vacant seats are replaced in the Senate in a number of diverse that sometimes involve special elections and gubernatorial appointments (sometimes with restrictions, sometimes without) and combinations of the two. This curious diversity is a product of the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct election of Senators:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

In recent months, the Senate vacancy issue has become prominent again. Just days before his death, the ailing Ted Kennedy wrote a letter (which can be read here) to lawmakers in Massachusetts encouraging them to make an alteration to existing law. The 2004 law, which he supported, requires a solution to Senate vacancies similar to House elections--no gubernatorial appointments, and a special election held 145-160 days after the vacancy was created. Kennedy's suggested alteration was for a placeholder appointment (who would not be eligible to run). Kennedy wished to retain the democratic spirit of the 2004 law, without depriving Massachusetts of what could turn out to be a crucial vote on a health care reform bill in the next few months. Critics accused him of trying to change the rules of the game to suit his short term political interests. The Massachusetts legislature is still considering acting on Kennedy's request.

Meanwhile, in Florida (where vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointment) popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist was given the opportunity to appoint the replacement for Senator Mel Martinez, who retired early. It was long known that Martinez had no plans to run for reelection in 2010, but his sudden retirement was a surprise. Crist did have the legal ability to appoint himself, and is widely believed to be contemplating a run for the Senate himself, so arguably this situation may have produced a conflict of interest (although not necessarily a favorable one, as Nate Silver argues here). In the end he appointed George LeMieux, his former campaign aide who will be sworn in tomorrow.

Frustrated with this state of affairs, Senator Russ Feingold has proposed a constitutional amendment to end the practice of Gubernatorial appointments and make special elections the law of the nation. In doing so, he's arguably pitted one central value of American politics (electoral control of legislators, government of, by and for the people) against another (federalism). It might be reasonable to argue that federalism in this case makes less sense than, say, governing education or criminal prosecutions locally, but on the other hand, unlike virtually every other state, we leave the administration of elections to local governance. 

Given the high bar Constitutional amendments must pass, Feingold is unlikely to be successful. Nevertheless, it raises interesting questions about the purpose and proper boundaries of federal variation. When considering the appropriate scope and boundaries of local and federal jurisdiction, it is sometimes too easy to let the constitution (or our favorite interpretive strategy of the constitution) do our thinking for us. Beyond the general good of adherence to the constitution, what principle or practical concern (if any) justify the status quo? Is Feingold's proposed amendment worthy of support, or an intrusive interference in local governance?