Joe Biden is their homeboy

The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN are all sporting the picture above on their home pages. The couple looks happy, rubbing elbows with Joe Biden as if he could be a long time family friend. This however, is not the case. Virginia couple Michaele and Tareq Salahi managed to sneak past the Secret Service Tuesday night at President Obama's first state dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. The couple even managed to shake hands with the President, an act that prompted the Secret Service to give a formal apology to our nation.

Instead of writing about this breach of security or even why the dinner for Prime Minister Singh was held journalists are writing about how the couple is trying to land a spot on the Bravo network's new show "The Real Housewives of D.C." and filing for bankruptcy in their hometown. Why is it that the news networks focus on the couple rather than the debacle of national security? According to Patterson the media tends to use the game schema more heavily to interpret the world than the people. Journalists tend to look at politics like a game, reporting on different events that help people either "win" or "lose." This event with the Salahi couple is being covered so extensively simply because reporters can comment on the event and use it later when they are deciding who is "in" and who is "out" in the political scene. But some readers are clearly upset about how the media has chosen to cover this. They cry out for explanations as to why the Secret Service could have allowed these uninvited guests to make it all the way to President Obama, but the media hasn't really covered the actual security breach. If most readers are more interested in the failures of our Secret Service than the couple's celebrity status will the news media ever change their ways? Chances are they will not--after all, a story about conflict or entertainment will always capture the attention of public, raising ratings and bringing in the money.

The McDonnell Model

The Republican Governor’s association held its annual meeting last week in Austin Texas. Among the attendees were, of course, the newly elected Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell. With both the New Jersey and the Virginia governor’s races over, the effects of those elections are still lingering. Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia is causing many to look at his campaign strategy with a mixture of awe and anticipation. With a clear and concise message, McDonnell was able to win over the median voter, and the election.

According to a recent article in Politico magazine, the McDonnell campaign was focused on the daily issues affecting average Virginians and not on cultural issues. While Creigh Deeds’ Democratic campaign focused on gay and women’s rights, the McDonnell campaign stuck to economic policy. And it was economic discussion that stuck most with undecided voters in Virginia on November 3rd. For this reason, Republicans are looking at the McDonnell campaign as a model for future GOP candidates.

But in order to understand the results of this election or of any election, one must look at the voters. One election theory discussed by Louis Menand of The New Yorker states that voters are simply not politically aware enough to make educated decisions about the candidates. So in turn, they base their vote on personality and outward appearance, not on the issues. The VA election both supports and disproves this theory. McDonnell was the most visible and the most energetic of the two candidates, his personality appealed to the larger majority of voters. But the GOP’s interpretation of the election disproves the theory. Republicans believe that voters were interested in the issues and voted for McDonnell because his economic plan appealed to their needs. If the GOP can pick a candidate whose personality strength matches his positions on the issues, than the McDonnell Model may work in the future.

Climate Change and the Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, is vehemently opposed to climate change. Representing over 3 million American businesses, the chamber is one of Washington's most important business interest groups. The chamber of commerce plays a large role in congress, paying millions in the lobbying efforts. As an interest group that represents millions of businesses, it is important to see how the chamber of commerce views climate change legistion. Mr. Donahue has spoken out against the EPA and environmental policy. He represents millions of business and not all have been on board with his controversial comments.

However, the chamber itself is in a state of disorder and disagreement. Many key members of the chamber have dropped out of the association and spoken out against it. The chamber is divided over the contentious issue of climate change. For some companies, supporting climate change is a strategic decision. When businesses are located in more liberal parts of the country, looking environmentally friendly could be a great business strategy for those companies. While other businesses are worried government regulation will only limit their long term growth. This division within the chamber could point to larger trends. Some experts look to this controversy as a shift in the position of businesses towards climate change. While others simply see a deeply divided association.

Interest Groups play and integral role in the passing of legislation. The pluralist vision of democracy looks to interest groups in making decision. It will be interesting to watch how the chamber of commerce continues to react to climate change legislation.

Palin Populism: 'The Rogue' Challenges Consensus Views

With the release of her new book, a facebook account, and an interview with Oprah, Sarah Palin has once again remerged in the public eye to intense reactions and grass-root support. As crowds rally along her book tour as if she were campaigning, Republicans are faced with a big question: should they relay on this powerful version of populism that Palin is rousing for their future electoral hopes?

The “ordinary citizen” hockey mom has come to embody the anti-elitism and deep skepticism of government that is at the root of populism. Anger due to government bailouts of Wall Street, unchecked actions by the elite, and increased government regulation are motivating this tide of support, which could be very powerful for the republican party, but also very dangerous electorally speaking. As Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University, says in the New York Times, “People for whom that is the major identity don’t get elected president. It’s a scary way to talk — not a way to talk to persuade people to trust you with power.”

If the republicans do decide to go with this Palin inspired populist sentiment, they will be betting on the fact that a “American Consensus”, or a shared set of values for all citizens, is not impenetrable to cracks, and that the struggle between elites and the masses over values will fall squarely on the side of “the people”. With the economic situation today, ordinary citizens have certainly rebelled against the unchecked economic and cultural values of the elite. If this anger and frustration were to be channeled in a productive manner it might prove successful, but republicans remain very much aware of the risks that this “populist wave” Palin is riding entails, including the threat to their conventional order.

Obama's decision on Afghanistan: a 'plebiscitary presidency'?

Earlier in the month, President Obama pushed his Afghan war council for revisions in strategy options presented to him before he narrowed in on his final decision on escalating troop levels in Afghanistan. Amongst the options the president is known to be considering are sending in a conservative number like 10,000 to 15,000 troops, a middle-figure of 20,000 or an additional 30,000 to 40,000 (which is General McChrystal’s personal recommendation). However, he decision-making process he is following with regard to increased troop deployment has been a contentious issue – many members of Congress have expressed dissatisfaction with him prolonging his decision and not providing the country with any real direction on the matter, and rival political figures like Dick Cheney have even gone on the record and accused him of “dithering”.

Political pundits have talked about the different factors that have weighed in on his pushing-back of the announcement on the issue – the Afghan elections, Pakistan’s successful military crackdowns against militants or simply the need to make a “wiser decision, that is better for America and the world.” But what about the role of public opinion on the whole matter? As we have seen from Craig Rimmerman’s opinions on the ‘plebiscitary presidency’, “the president seeks to govern though the direct support of the American people.” Obama's strategy session took place just as a new opinion poll showed a growing number of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is not going well and disapprove of his handling of the situation.  Due to the record number of casualties reported this year, public support for the war has eroded. And the president must be aware of the fact that sending in more troops could become a political liability for him ahead of congressional elections next year. 

According to Rimmerman, the plebiscitary presidency is characterized by the fact that “presidential power and legitimacy emanates from citizen support as measured through public opinion polls.” Public approval of Obama's handling of Afghanistan has dropped from earlier on in July of this year. 45 percent approve of how Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan, compared with 48 percent who disapprove -- up one percentage point from just one month ago. And there is no doubt that the Obama administration is aware of these numbers and their implications.

On the one hand, President Obama has to be careful not to displease voters who are already disgruntled with the situation in Afghanistan while at the same time making sure to come to the “right decision” that is in the best interests of the country. According to a Washington Post- ABC News opinion poll released last week, 46 percent of Americans support a large influx of troops to fight insurgents and train the Afghan military, while 45 percent back a smaller number of new U.S. forces more narrowly focused on training. It’s no wonder that President Obama, who must want the majority of Americans to be satisfied with his final decision, is taking so long to announce it! Just judging by the numbers, it appears as though he has a really difficult decision ahead of him. So while Obama’s decision-making process has definitely been influenced by the tensions between several competing considerations, public support, or now the lack of it, is also surely playing a role.

 

Separation of Church and State?

On Friday, November 20, 2009, 152 Catholic bishops sent a declaration to the US Senate. In addition to addressing the sanctity of marriage and religious worship, it condemned the recent Healthcare Reform Bill as unacceptable because of its references to abortion. The bishops would like something similar to the Stupak Amendment to be added into the Senate’s version of the bill. Following this declaration, Representative Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kennedy, revealed that in early 2007, the Council of Bishops asked him to stop accepting communion because of his stance on abortion. So, is the Church preventing our politicians from worshiping as they choose because of their political stance on hot-button issues? And, how can we trust that elected officials are truly representing the beliefs of their constituents when they face massive pressure from their churches? In this situation, it comes down to a major interest group, namely devoutly Catholic America, using their swing to push through policy that represents what is in the Church’s best interest over that of society. Shouldn’t any woman, whether she sits in church every week or not, be able to choose what happens to her body? Shouldn’t the Church remain in the sphere of worship and faith, leaving politicians to deal with politics?

On November 21, 2009, the Senate voted to advance Obama’s landmark healthcare bill to full debate, including votes on various amendments, after Thanksgiving. The bill will require the majority of Americans to have insurance and offer government aid to those who couldn’t afford it. Large companies and corporations would be required to provide healthcare coverage to their employees. The bill would also create extensive regulation of the insurance industry, including banning the practice of denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. Congress’ budget analysis of the new legislation puts costs at $1 trillion over 10 years. Furthermore, the new plan includes a public health insurance option, a dividing and controversial issue.
The House approved one version of the bill earlier in November, and Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), hopes to pass the Senate’s version by the end of the year. Many Senate Democrats and Obama administration officials are appealing to select Senate Republicans to try to win their support. The main two Senators that Democrats are reaching out to are moderate Republicans, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snow (R-Maine). Even GOP leaders have conceded that Saturday’s victory implicated that the bill might ultimately pass. However, some of the senators who reluctantly voted yes on the advancement of the bill have stated not to promise to cooperate if the bill is later filibustered. Both of these weaknesses in the bill’s cause, the moderate Republicans and the wavering democratic supporters, will cause the Democrats and independents to create joint amendments and continue to compromise.
All the compromises and amendments force us to ask the question, what does the public think about the new healthcare bill? According to a Washington Post poll, 57% of Americans support having the government create a new health insurance plan. We all know that Congress is by no means an entirely plebisitary body, however, making a move to pass this legislation, even including major amendments in hopes of winning Republicans, would be an act in favor of public opinion.

Health Care Reform: Preventative Care for Potomac Fever

On Saturday the Senate voted to open debate on their major health care reform bill. Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas provided the pivotal 60th vote, though she said she made clear she might not support the bill in its final form. But as The New York Times points out, her final vote could be heavily influenced by political, not policy, considerations. She is, after all, up for reelection in November, and her home state is divided on the issue, so she needs to choose her position carefully.

Of course, she denied that politics would influence her decision, saying, "I’m thinking about the 450,000 Arkansans who have no health insurance...I’m not thinking about my re-election, the legacy of a president or whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be able to claim victory in winning this debate."

Yeah, right. By stating her home state as her number one priority, she is exemplifying the exact behavior of someone trying to get reelected. Since only Arkansans will be voting for her in the Senatorial election, it is them she needs to focus on to avoid accusations of "Potomac fever" or "neglecting the district" from her Republican opposition.

GINA’s Outcome Outweighs the Cost

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) went into effect this weekend. GINA, which the New York Times called “the most important new anti-discrimination law in two decades,” prevents employers and insurance providers from requesting genetic information, like family histories, or requiring genetic testing. GINA will not allow employers to consider this information when hiring, firing, or promoting employees. Health insurance providers will not be able to deny coverage or set premiums and deductibles based on genetic information.

This bill was passed because Washington recognized that if GINA were not in effect, Americans may not get genetic testing for fear of losing their jobs. Genetic testing is very important because it can diagnose a disease or gauge the risk of developing a disease. The tests can then be used in choosing a treatment or making lifestyle adjustments to lower one’s risk of developing a disease. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, a government agency, 63% of Americans polled would choose not to be tested if employers had access to the test results. How many people would get sick from diseases that could have been prevented or treated early on? From an economic position, how much health insurance money would be spent on expensive procedures, pills, and practices because a person was never genetically tested?

GINA will stop this from happening. Americans will be able to get genetic testing and will not be afraid of workplace consequences. It may be hard for some companies to adjust to the new law, but it is better to adjust now so that America’s health does not have to pay later.

When in doubt, delay

Despite relentless media and political attention to the health care bill, there are in fact many other urgent pieces of legislation that must be renewed or acted upon in some way before the December holiday recess begins. However, there is a backlog in legislative accomplishments in the Senate due to Republicans holding up often routine and popular legislation. In fact, some of the bills the Republicans have delayed, such as an extension on unemployment benefits, ended up passing without any nay votes. These delay tactics point to two major issues in American politics. First, the ability of the Republicans to dramatically slow down the legislative process even though they are in the minority points to the importance of Senate rules. In the House, bills are voted on according to rules set along partisan votes, so it is hard for the minority party to delay votes on non-contentious issues. However, in the Senate the power of the filibuster, holds, and open debate leads to more power for individual Senators, and because of the bicameral legislative system, just a few disgruntled Senators can hold up popular and essential legislation for the whole country. Second, the relatively low profile of many of these important as of yet unapproved appointees and bills highlight the media’s preference for drama and personality (healthcare vote-wrangling and rumors) over procedural issues that are important but complex and dry.

First Amendment 0 - 2 This Week at the High Court

The Supreme Court denied certiorari to McComb v. Crehan and Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc on Monday and Tuesday, respectively. When the Supreme Court does not hear a case, it reaffirms the decision of the lower courts in that case.

The first case was an appeal by Brittany McComb of Nevada, who argued her First Amendment rights had been violated when her high school turned off her microphone when she began to preach Christianity during her 2006 graduation speech. The Colorado court sided with the county’s school officials.

The justices also declined to hear arguments in a case about the Washington Redskins name (and logo), which Native American activists considered offensive. The Court was asked to decide not on the offensiveness of the name but on the timing of the petitioners’ claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the eight years that had passed were too long to wait to file the claim in court. The Court’s denial ends a twenty year legal struggle over the football team’s name.

These two cases are an example the “Casablanca Test” – acting righteously in a moment of crisis. (If you don’t get the reference, go rent Casablanca from Netflix.) The Court historically has failed this test, proving to protect rights in small ways and at times that it matters the least. This is, of course, not always true, but landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are the exception and not the rule.

This week, the Court encountered the Casablanca Test twice. Neither of these cases, had the Court heard them, would have become landmark decisions. Yet the justices did not grant certiorari to two groups (a minority group whose culture had been insulted and a student whose rights had been violated) who appealed to them to hear their cases. So, they did not act righteously in a time of non-crisis.

Perhaps if they had heard the cases it would be easier to tell if the Court passed or failed the Casablanca Test. (If you pass it by acting righteously in a time of crisis, did the Court fail it this week by not acting in a time of non-crisis?) If it had decided in favor of either the Native American activists or the student, it would have been acting righteously in a time of non-crisis. Then again, would it not have been righteous if the Court had upheld the First Amendment, even in a time of non-crisis? We will never know now because the Court will not hear these two cases. It may not be a great loss for American constitutional scholarship, but it is certainly a loss for both Brittany McComb and the Native American activists.

Senator Chris Dodd’s Vision of Regulatory Reform

On Nov 10, 2009 Senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking committee released an 1,136 page bill designed to transform the financial regulatory system and address the problems that caused the financial crisis. Since the collapse of financial heavyweights like Lehman Brothers and the massive tax-payer bailouts, the White House, House, and Senate have designed proposals for regulatory reform aimed to prevent another financial disaster. Senator Dodd’s plan includes creating a super bank regulator that would take over the Federal Reserve’s and FDIC’s direct supervisory powers, transferring consumer protection responsibilities to a new regulatory agency, and granting greater authority to the Security and Exchanges Commission.

The aggressive nature of Dodd’s plan has drawn criticism from Republicans, existing regulators, the Fed, and business interests groups. For example, senior Republican senators were noticeably missing for Tuesday’s press conference when Senator Dodd unveiled his vision of regulatory reform. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a source of dissension for many Republicans and threatens bipartisan support for the bill. The Fed, whose regulatory authority would be stripped and duties confined to monetary policy if the bill passed, contends that its current supervisory role produces data necessary to its decisions regarding interest rates.

In comparison to the plans proposed by the House and White House, this Senate bill is more aggressive in consolidating existing regulatory bodies and redefining the roles of long-established financial agencies. These differences as well as opposition from the Fed and Republicans reduce the likelihood that regulatory reform will be completed by the end of the year given that there are less than 20 days left in the legislative session. Passing regulatory reform with the 60-vote requirement in the face of Republican opposition as well as the large differences between the House and Senate proposals, whose design is closer to the current system, will be a challenge to Democrats and advocates of strict financial regulation in the New Year. The nature of this legislation and the Madisonian design of Congress will give incredible power to those moderate Republicans debating whether to extend their support to a bill not praised by their party.

Are our Representatives Trustworthy?

The framers of this great nation’s constitution instilled it with a core of set values, principles, and institutions. One of the most important institutions–if not the most important- is checks and balances. Institutions establish rules, roles and unite people within those roles, therefore inspiring a sense of identity and incentives. The identity of this country has consequently included a sense of limiting the power of any one entity be it a person, a business, an interest group, etc.

In our legislative body, Congress, which is itself checked by two other branches of government, the two houses serve as one of the checks on one another. Within houses, committees, time constraints, and diverse interests serve as other checks and balances. But where there is money involved, people tend to organize very quickly as wolves gather when they spot the day's meal. And with very little checking or balancing how third parties distribute their money, why isn't there more regulation?

Journalist Robert Pear wrote today in the New York Times about how 42 House Representatives on both sides of the aisle submitted very similar statements for the Congressional Record in defense of keeping scientific research jobs in the United States. After the Times informs the reader that these representatives were fed propaganda from Genetech, a large biotech company, and that this same company’s lobbyists’ give generous campaign contributions, Representatives' unity should come as no surprise. But is this democratic? Under a trusteeship vision of democracy –which would be most in support of these schemes than any other view- only a little. We might trust our representatives, once elected, to do whatever they see fit --but can we trust that they will remain so discreet even after wealthy third parties have had a go at them? I don’t think so, and Genetech's broad bipartisan success supports this view.

Obama's Star Power Fading? Not so fast!

New Jersey’s gubernatorial election this year between incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine and his Republican rival Chris Christie has received special attention from the White House. President Obama campaigned for Corzine three times during the summer election season. Just two days before the election with Corzine still trailing Christie by several percentage points, President Obama headlined a pair of get-out-the-vote rallies for the unpopular Governor in Newark and Camden, again urging registered Democrats to help him by reelecting Corzine. White House’s anxiety for this race is justified because this election, along two others (Virginia’s gubernatorial election and New York’s 23^rd Congressional District election) is the first real test of Obama’s influence among voters since last year’s presidential election. The outcome of these elections will determine whether or not Obama’s popularity had staying power and can be transferred over to other democratic candidates. A positive outcome for Obama will greatly improve his ability to use the power of persuasion with the members of Congress on future key legislatures. “If Corzine can activate the Obama surge vote in New Jersey, that would suggest that last year was more than just a flash, that it has staying power,” said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University.

Unfortunately for the Democratcs, Corzine lost the election to Christie despite having spent twice as much money campaigning and having President Obama as his speaker. Christie’s win marks the Republicans’ first gubernatorial victory in New Jersey in a dozen years. To many, this naturally suggests that Obama was losing his star power. Some Republicans even went as far as to say that voters were “reacting to Obama’s policies” by voting Republican. However, these assumptions are ungrounded because they do not take into account that Corzine had been highly unpopular since he had been elected. Polls before the election showed that voters in New Jersey remained strongly supportive of President Obama. In another poll, 76 percent of New Jersey voters said that their vote in the governor’s race will be based solely on state and local issues. 70 percent of voters in a similar poll said that Obama actively campaign for Corzine would have no impact on their vote in the race.

Although it is dubious what Corzine’s loss say about Obama influence among voters in New Jersey, many democrats may indeed view this loss as an indication of Obama’s declining presidential power. Presidential power is framed by three determinants, one of which is presidential popularity. Party Democrats may see Obama’s inability to elect Corzine in New Jersey as a sign that Obama is losing his popularity and his influence on voters. As a result, they may not be compelled to vote with the president on future legislatures. Similarly, Obama can no longer use his influence over voters to bargain with members of the Congress or candidates of an election, diminishing his power of persuasion.

A way for a President to impact the United States even after his term limits have forced him out of office is to appoint judges thar share their ideology to the judiciary. Judges have longer term limits than the President does and they therefore have the ability to make landmark decisions that can shape the country long after the President has left office. Why then, one must wonder, is President Obama not taking advantage of this with judicial appointments?

This is the argument that liberals are making in America today. They are not happy with the number of nominations placed by President Obama for appellate and district court judges, nor should they be. Placing Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is not enough. With over 100 spots open for judges, President Obama needs to make a priority of this issue and realize that there is more than one court making key decisions for this country. The fact that he is not taking action is worsened by the fact that there is no better time to place nominations than today because Republicans do not have enough Senators to attempt a filibuster; this might not be true next year after the 2010 midterm elections. There are at least going to be 36 seats up for election and it is unclear that the political environment will be favorable for the President’s party.

As such, President Obama needs to take action today. Our Constitution is set up so that Senators have to approve the President’s nominations. This empowers them, it gives the Senate a say to who is going to be placed on the courts. The minority still has ability to hold back these actions, however, there is only so much that the Republican party can do to stop the nominations as currently positioned. By nominating so few judges, he is losing a key opportunity. It is important to nominate judges with high chances of getting approved, but he is wasting too much time and leaving spots open.

Is the UN comparable in power to the Supreme Court?

Next month, world governments are to convene at COP15, the UN climate-change summit in Copenhagen to discuss and craft a new protocol aimed at reducing global warming because the Kyoto Protocol is soon expiring. However, diplomats and environmentalists, especially global climate change negotiators are worried that there would be no final agreement between developed and developing countries in regards to the limit on green house gas emissions. There have been many disagreements in regard to the limit of green house emission in different countries obviously, since developing countries believe it’s unfair for them to cut their national emissions when already developed countries like the United States, who were responsible for a large amount of current and past emissions to not yield and cut their emissions by significantly.

Currently, the United States is still in talks in finalizing the debate over the carbon emission cap. Although the House has already approved a bill that would limit the US green house gas emissions, the Senate is still deadlocked and have not yet signed the bill. This consequently causes other developing nations like India and China to wait before handing in their proposal for emission cuts, thus, delaying talks for a full, legal binding treaty for parties to ratify on environmental conditions.

The deadlock and difficulty in different countries to come up with official treaties on greenhouse gas emissions has to do with the UN’s lack of power to command. The UN is in a way like the US Supreme Court, as it has neither “force nor will” to direct the nations in the world to do as they say. They lack both the sword and the purse since they cannot force any nation to follow a set of rules, like abiding by certain environmental laws and cut back on emission since they do not have the wealth, hence incentive, for countries to listen to them, and at the same time, if a country were to walk out on the rules and not abide by them, there will be no repercussion, at least not the UN’s part since they cannot stake out an army against that country and forcibly make sure the country follows the gas emission caps. A total disregard for the UN can be seen in previous talks in Barcelona, where 50 African nations walked out on talks, protesting richer nations for not yielding to a significant drop in greenhouse emissions in the year 2020. In this way, the UN is a lot like the Supreme Court in that the only way the UN would have any power is if all the countries listened to the UN, which clearly isn’t the case currently with so many different country leaders at squabbles with each other over how much gas emissions to limit, all wanting to limit the least amount they possibly can.

Legitimacy: Van Hook and ABA shafted ‘in the Clutch’

During her time as a Justice on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor stressed the importance of legitimacy as a means of upholding Court rulings. Legitimacy was the order of the day in the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Bobby v. Van Hook. Accused and convicted of aggravated murder, with capital specification and aggravated robbery of David Self in 1985, Robert J. Van Hook was sentenced to death. Van Hook filed 17 claims for post-conviction relief, appeals and rehearings--all of which were denied by the District Court. The Sixth Circuit Court, however, sided with Mr. Van Hook stating that his lawyers were remiss in their responsibilities during sentencing---his attorney's did not fully grasp the effects of his childhood, a tumultuous time of both physical and emotional abuse as a result of his parents substance abuse. Because his attorney's had not gathered sufficient information during investigation and, as a result, could not work diligently to alleviate the sentence.

When the case came before the Supreme Court on November 9, 2009, the Justices ruled that the Sixth Circuit Court was in the wrong in siding with Van Hook. Although the Supreme Court acknowledged the Circuit Court's support of the American Bar Association's (ABA) stance to fully investigate all potential mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court believes that the Circuit treated the ABA stance not as suggestions, but commands. The Supreme Court maintains that Van Hook's attorney's were not negligent and reversed the judgment of the Circuit.

Justice Alito stated that American Bar Association, though respected, is comprised of a few select members who do not speak for all the members of the association. Against the standard of the Sixth Amendment which addresses criminal prosecutions, the court, not the ABA determines whether or not actions comply with the Constitution. And so we have it, the Justices’ ruling has taken into consideration that in the opinion of the court, the few members of the ABA are not the vox populi.

Is the US Ready for a Civilian Trial of 9/11 Terrorist?

On November 13, the Obama administration announced that the self-proclaimed “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, would be tried in a Manhattan federal courtroom...mere blocks away from Ground Zero. While many Democrats and civil-liberties/human-rights groups are pleased by Obama’s decision to prosecute Mohammed on American grounds, others argue that al Qaeda suspects do not “deserve” the rights guaranteed by the American justice system, claiming that the “interests of liberal special interest groups would be put before the safety and security of the American people." Accordingly, the latter group insists that accused Al Qaeda members be prosecuted before special military tribunals, as they had been previously during the Bush administration. However, Obama has stated that while his ultimate goal is to close down all military prison camps such as Guantanamo, some suspects would be tried in civilian courts, while others, depending on several factors that are to be evaluated by Justice and Pentagon prosecutors, would be tried in “modified” military commissions.

Nonetheless, the prosecution of detainees on American grounds may be seen as a markedly different approach from the policies of the Bush administration. Many see the decision to revert back to the court system as a significant step towards dismantling President Bush’s highly controversial executive orders/unilateral directives, which not only suspended the liberties and rights of the accused, but also stripped the courts and Congress of some of its powers. While the executive orders of President Bush, according to Howell, pretty much fused all three separate powers in one person, President Obama’s decision to bring Mohammed’s case to the American people upholds the Madisonian system of separation of powers and the ideals of democracy (in the classical sense). In contrast to the military commissions which were under the president's jurisdiction, the civilian trial of Mohammed, gives back to ordinary citizens the power to participate in the judicial system; this may be seen as a feat for the American legal system and the rule of law (namely due process). As Obama put it, “I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice.”

Is Racism an American Value?

In light of the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood, Army officials and Muslim servicemembers have expressed concern of a possible backlash against Muslims in the military. Whether or not Major Nidal Malik Hasan's religion played a role in his attack should not matter. He is one man out of 3,000 other Muslim servicemembers. When one Christian commits a similar act, we do not condemn all Christians. We did not denounce Christianity when Timothy McVeigh, a white Christian, bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. In this case, however, there has been some talk of removing Muslims from the military. Timothy Rollins of Oklahoma even called for the "honorable discharge" of all Muslims in the Armed Forces.

The reaction to the attack on Fort Hood raises concerns about racism and prejudices in America. Do Americans hold racism as a part of traditional "American values"? Despite equality being one of the founding ideas, U.S. History has shown that Americans have not practiced the idea, and still harbor racist prejudices. Despite the laws and Constitutional amendments, the truth is that minority groups fear that their group will be targeted when an individual commits a crime to this degree. If equality were truly an American value, minority groups would not have to worry about backlash in instances like Fort Hood.

The Economic Crisis vs. Gay Rights Issues....Really?

One would think (or hope, in some cases) that the setbacks in California and Maine would deter gay rights advocates from continuing the fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage but really, it hasn't. Governor David A. Paterson is trying to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New York.

Nevertheless opponents of gay marriage are not sitting back just celebrating their victories. One of the loudest--if not the loudest--opponent of same-sex marriage, Senator Rubén Díaz Sr is often able to produce results against such legislation because of the Democrats' fragile majority in the Senate. Along with several colleagues, Senator Rubén Díaz Sr argues that gay rights legislature should not be allowed to reach the floor. With more pressing issues like the crumbling economy, should gay rights, which are arguably less urgent, be postponed for later?

As Kingdon stresses in Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, policy windows are only open for a short amount of time and therefore, policy entrepreneurs should focus on providing alternatives to the crisis that the American economy is currently undergoing. Although Senator Rubén Díaz Sr would disagree, the reality is that gay rights are important and therefore, such bills and policies like the one Gov. David A. Paterson is trying to pass in favor of same-sex marriage will inevitably come up in the policy stream again---pushing for it now when everyone's attention is on the economy will only limit the amount of support people are willing to offer the movement. Regardless of one's position on same-sex marriage, the smartest move gay rights advocates could make right now is to wait for the fiscal crisis to be somewhat ameliorated if they want to have any hope in getting the most support for their cause.

One Small Step for Democrats, One Giant Leap for Healthcare

In this Thursday’s economist, the magazine depicts both House majority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid in a relay race passing off a stick of dynamite. It is no surprise that this is an accurate depiction of the pending doom for the healthcare bill in the Senate.

The healthcare bill barely passed by a small 220-215 margin in the house. Although the bill squeezed through the house, democrats should not celebrate yet, as it will most likely not fare as well in the senate. Senate majority leader Reid already has democrat senators from conservative states that are hesitant to vote for the bill such as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Even Senator Joe Liebermann, one of two independents in the Senate who is strategically necessary to supplement Reid’s fifty-eight democrats, threatens to filibuster any bill containing a public plan.

The bill passing in the house simply shows that the American people as a whole recognize the rising cost of healthcare. The reluctance of senators to vote for the bill shows that it will most likely not pass as currently written. In recognition of this, House majority leader Nancy Pelosi has even revived the idea of a "public-option" that will enable private insurance companies to compete with a government-run insurer to maintain America's capitalist form of economy. The final product of this bill, whatever it may be, will be a unique and reflection of the overall basic ideas of Samuel Huntington's American Creed, including its stresses on individualism, equality, and liberty. It will expand choices of the individual on their care by introducing this "public-option" and will enable thirty-nine million uninsured people to get the care that they need.

RNC's Insurance Plan: Covering Abortions Since 1991.

On Thursday, Politico reported that the RNC has been offering its employees a health care policy that covers elective abortions since 1991. Cigna employees were cited as saying that the RNC had the choice to opt out of the abortion coverage, but failed to do so. Michael Steele, the RNC chairman, apparently didn’t know about the abortion coverage until the news report on Thursday. He made a statement on Friday saying, “Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said that Steele immediately told staff to tell Cigna that the RNC wanted to opt out of the abortion coverage.

This discovery is surprising because “the GOP platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language.” All but one of the Republicans in the House voted for the Stupak amendment, an amendment restricting abortion coverage. This amendment has placed the Democrats in a difficult position. They want the health care bill to go through, but many of them are not happy with the restrictions put in place by the Stupak amendment. If the amendment remains on the health care bill, the pro-choice Democrats will have to decide if it is more important to support health care reform or women’s rights.

Immigration Overhaul Happening Anytime Soon?

Now that the issue of health care reform has somewhat subsided, more proposals on the government agenda are gaining attention; one of them is the topic of immigration. The Obama administration has recently decided to push for measures giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States early next year. Advocates plan to push for legislation that will revise and make adjustments to the immigration system as stated by Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary. This is the administration’s answer to criticism about the detainment of immigration violators, and its hopes to create a “truly civil detention system.”

In order to do so, Napolitano says that the administration will argue for a plan “enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, and streamlining the system for legal immigration.” However, the question rises as to whether or not Obama can keep his promise of immigration reform while focusing on other proposals that crowd the agenda; there is also the difficulty of passing legislation through the House and Senate. Based on the countless committees in the House, as well as other “checkpoints” in the Senate, advocates fear that there may not be enough time for the Obama administration to undertake immigration policy reform; policy windows may open, but they only remain open for a short period of time.

Despite these doubts, Napolitano assures that Congress should be ready for the immigration overhaul, and adds, “We will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows.” She and other advocacy groups hope that gathering enough support from other interest groups will be enough for Congress to concentrate on immigration reform.

Disgruntled Soldier Attacks

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, killed 13 people and wounded 30. Hasan himself was shot four times but is still alive. The shooting took place at 1:30 P.M.. at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center of Fort Hood and it was not until after 7 P.M. that the gates of Fort Hood could be reopened.

Why did Major Hasan decide to go on a shooting rampage just before deployment? In the army, Hasan faced anti-Muslim harassment. Hasan was ordered to be deployed and wanted to be discharged but was told that it was practically impossible. According to the NY times, Hasan “was wrestling with the quandary of being a Muslim officer in an army fighting other Muslims”. Many people are asking if this disaster could have been prevented. Did the Army overlook obvious signs of Hasan’s discontent? It is obvious that the Army missed something otherwise the shooting would not have happened.

During this time of chaos, the people have looked to the President for answers. America has turned to Obama for two reasons. The first reason is that U.S. system of government fuses the head of state and head of government into a single individual, the president. Obama urges everyone to stay calm until all the facts are out. The second reason has to do with Wildavsky’s idea of two presidencies. He argues that the president is in charge of foreign policy and congress and others are in charge of domestic policy. Because there has been suggestions that Hasan’s rampage was an act of terrorism, we look to the president who is responsible for foreign policy to explain.

Success in Iraq Election Law - but will the US ever stop intervening?

Described by President Obama as a “milestone” in the Iraqi pursuit of sovereignty, the Iraqi parliament has approved an election reform. The law calls for a general election to be held in January of next year, after which the US intends for a withdrawal of 120,000 troops but leaving 50,000 troops by next August. The success of such an election will have lasting effects on both the domestic and international perception on the US effort in Iraq.

Getting down to the nuts and bolts of the election’s voter registration lists, the Iraqi parliament failed to reach a consensus as to whether to use 2004, 2005, or 2009’s voter rolls. This choice will have a direct effect on the outcome of the election due to the displacement of tens of thousands of Kurds who were expelled during Saddam Hussein’s rein and returned during the US occupation. Therefore, Arabs and Turkmens are in strong favor of using lists from 2004 and 2005, whereas Kurds wish to reflect their current numbers on the 2009 list. Today, an agreement was negotiated by the United Nations and the US to use voter lists from 2009, reflecting continued inefficiency in the Iraqi parliament.

Members of the Parliament were reportedly displeased with US interference and the Americans urging for the elections to happen in a timely manner. The New York Times quoted a Sunni member of the parliament was quoted, “Unfortunately, the Americans are insisting on certain dates more than they are insisting on the objectivity of their decisions.” For now, the Parliament can still decide when to ultimately hold the elections – one has to wonder, whether President Obama and his administration will intervene then.

Gallup.com Politics News polled Obama’s approval rating as falling to 54% in the recent month from 68% in February this year. Between approving plans for increasing troops in Afghanistan and approving plans for continued US presence in in Iraq, the public has clear doubts about where the president is headed, perhaps not just in the Middle East. Particularly since if the public is opposed to the continued US troops and the usage of the government’s resources in Iraq, how does the public feel about the continued US interference in Iraq’s journey to democracy? Or perhaps are we “assisting” the Iraqis in what Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq a “historic victory of the will of the [Iraqi] people”?

The Iraq election reform will either reinforce perception of Obama’s tendency to compromise his campaign beliefs while in office or bolster the president’s current image as a foreign policy aficionado with the hope that the US can finally withdraw from Iraq to end the chapter on what the US public has come to consider a mistake.

Dede Scozzafava Makes the GOP Squirm

Dede Scozzafava, an Assemblywoman from District 122 of New York, has the Republican Party worried.

Scozzafava, a moderate Republican, was chosen by the New York State GOP Party as their candidate for the special election congressional race of the 23rd district. But Many Republicans from the far-right, including 2008 vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh, didn’t support her nomination as the GOP party candidate because they believed her moderate views did not represent the Republican Party. Doug Hoffman, another Republican from the far-right, decided to represent those conservative views by challenging Scozzafava in the congressional race by running as the candidate for the New York Conservative Party.

On October 31, Dede Scozzafava withdrew from the congressional race when it was apparent she was not going to garner enough votes to win—leaving the race between the Democratic candidate Bill Owens and the Conservative Party’s Doug Hoffman. On November 1, just two days before the election, Scozzafava announced her support for Democratic candidate Bill Owens. It was suspected that her decision to support Owens was because of her anger towards her challengers in the Republican Party and pressure from the Democratic Party, in particular, the White House.

Owens won with 49% of the vote, with Hoffman receiving 45% of the vote and Scozzafava receiving 6%. The Democrats considered this an important victory, since the 23rd Congressional district had been held by the GOP since 1872.

Now, the Republican Party is unsure whether to allow her to remain in the party. Many Republicans feel she is to blame for the lost Republican seat in Congress and should be "stripped" of her party status. Scozzafava is currently the Minority Leader Pro Tempore and has expressed concern in losing that position. The Democratic Party has agreed to support her if she decides to switch parties.

This outlines a fundamental problem for the Republican Party. A party that has been characterized by its organization and structure is now being split. Time Magazine is calling it an “Identity Crisis.” Dozens of GOP candidates in gubernatorial and House elections are beginning to face far-right, conservative challengers from their own party. These challengers will split the Republican Party in the subsequent elections and provide difficulties for GOP victory. If the GOP cannot focus their support, this may be a window of opportunity for the Democrats to get more seats.

The recent controversy regarding the Assemblywoman also brings up the issue of the importance of party politics. Scozzafava was not afraid to part with her party’s values on many issues during her political career. Some of her more liberal opinions were supporting same-sex marriage, being pro-choice, and supporting Obama’s Stimulus Package—opinions that many of the Republican Party did not support.

Should an elected representative make decisions based on the views of her party or her constituents, or should she use her own judgment and political expertise to guide her decisions? English Statesman Edmund Burke in his speech to the constituents of Bristol makes an argument in favor of the trusteeship, or representative government view. He argues that he was elected because his constituents trusted him to make his own decisions.

But many countries value the opinions of the party rather over individual opinions. In Israel, for example, constituents only need to make one vote: the party which they support. Political figures are then decided by a multi-member proportional election where the representatives are elected proportional to the percentage of votes the party received in the election. The representatives are then expected to follow the opinions of the party.

Will representation based on constituents’ views or the elected representative’s judgments become more valued because of Scozzafava’s example? And will the Republican Party be able to focus their support in one candidate in the following elections? It will be interesting to see what happens in the elections to come.

I Have High Standards

In many states and countries, a major source of pride is the intellectual caliber they posses. Focus is placed on how smart the children are, how they rank in comparison to the rest of the country and the world, and how comprehensive the education provided by their schools is. The commonwealth of Massachusetts is no exception. Following the Education Reform Act of 1993, Massachusetts moved to provide credible and comprehensive assessment of how well students performed in main subjects as English and Math, as well as Science. This response to the ERA was actualized by the creation of MCAS ( Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) ,which refers to the state-wide administered tests that evaluate student performance of such subject areas.

The purpose of the MCAS is to foster the improvement of schools and their curricula, by identifying problem areas in different subjects. The philosophy behind the system is that by linking funding with high levels of performance, schools will be increasingly motivated to provide adequate and improving education for their students. The MCAS is also a determinative factor for high school diplomas, which is set up to impel students to place constant effort into their education. However, as political events has shown in the past, unintended results can occur from enacted policies. The latest news on the Boston Globe reports that a disproportional amount of Massachusetts's public schools have failed to meet the Federal Standard of 'nicklebee'. Many have scapegoated the schools for not improving their curricula, or the students who place no effort, however, others find blame with the state and the testing system itself.

MCAS has led to narrow curricula, bland schooling and an overbearing impact of socioeconomic status on education. The critics point out how much of the 'good' that MCAS was to implement has actually led to the denial of diplomas to many students, and increased drop out rates. MCAS places no regard for children with disabilities and other impediments to certain subject areas, and apathetically deters their futures. Representative Sciortino proposed back in January a reform bill to the MCAS, labeled as House no. 3660 which will enable expansion in the education of schools, understand the difficulties many students may face and be more flexible in the formerly rigid system that prevented many students from graduating. Hearings conducted in June of this year not only demonstrates such unintended results, but the advantage of the avenue of participatory democracy in this Commonwealth. Representatives were not the only ones who were arguing for the reform due to documented evidence of the failure of MCAS, but the citizens who were affected by MCAS, who took advantage of their rights, also demonstrated the first hand detriment it caused.

The standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act require the documented progress, on a bi-annual basis, of state assessments of public schools. The Boston Globe article regards the absence of such progress, the factor for such failure, yet it also mentions the role reserved for the states. Massachusetts, as well as the other 49 states of the country, have been allocated the right to choose what the standard of proficiency should be. Which Massachusetts defines as the second highest score- a high, and an inevitably unrealistic benchmark that has worked to displace many high school students. There is a clear sovereignty held by the states, holding the Commonwealth responsible for such a high percentage of failure.

Once the incentives of a policy have been undermined by the ensuing results, a flashing red light should come on to halt construction, destroy the frame and rebuild.

Federalism and the Race to the Top

The modern American vision of Democracy remains faithful to the one proposed by our Founding Fathers. Since the implementation of the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation, our country has stood firmly by the Federalist system: whereas many countries allow one central government to decide on public policy, much United States legislation is determined through its fifty state governments.

Arguments against the Federalist Papers were made, such as by proponents of the Confederacy, and criticisms have all but vanished. Perhaps the lack of centralized authority in the United States has indeed made some areas of public policy difficult to tackle--such as health care, where massive amounts of legislation have recently been required to enact reform.

But Federalism has endured for good reason. The Federalist approach has led to fifty discrete systems of public schooling, in contrast to the unilateral approach that many countries take towards education. This has allowed for competition that has the potential to raise the standard of American education as a whole, which President Obama has recognized through his introduction of the Race to the Top fund as part of the American Recovery and Restoration Act (ARRA). In contrast to No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the focus of Race to the Top is on fostering competition between states, rather than setting national standards that encourage states that lower their education standards to achieve preset goals. In recognizing that much of our country's public school legislation occurs on the state level, President Obama has finally found the proper outlet for the Fed's spendings on education.

The Race to the Top fund has an endowment of $4.35 billion, to be allotted to schools that "achieve significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring that students are prepared for success in college and careers."

While Federalism may struggle in some areas where centralized government more readily succeeds, its ability to focus on the individual needs of each State have not gone unnoticed. Even without the promise of the Race to the Top fund, some states have begun their own races towards successful educational systems.

What Went Wrong?

As the country watched, the people of Maine voted to repeal the state's new law on same sex marriage, 53%-47%, during Tuesday's election. Had this law been approved it would have represented a large victory for the gay community, especially because it would have been done by the people. Despite what seemed to be the perfect political setting for such a policy to be enacted, it was a failed attempt.

But why did this fail? The Democratic Party currently holds the House and Senate in Maine and John Baldacci, the governor, is also a Democrat. The government clearly showed support for gay marriage by drafting the law that would later be voted on by the people. The grassroots movement "No On 1" managed to garner volunteers from all over the country and raised almost twice as much money compared to the right wing group "Stand for Marriage." Supporters of "No On 1" took note of the strategic failures of the "No On 8" campaign in California last fall and tried to combat them by educating people on the issue and getting them out to vote early.

But despite all of this their efforts were not enough. The policy window for gay marriage in Maine had definitely opened (after all, the state did just expand its medical marijuana laws, indicating that progressive social reform was a possibility). Some analysts site the lack of support from national democratic figures such as President Obama as a reason why the law was repealed, while others, such as Geoff Kors, director of Equality California, state that more work needed to be done to win over voters before the election--not during it.

Although they had the chance, supporters of gay marriage fell short, perhaps for a variety of reasons. It can only be hoped that a window for gay marriage will open again in the near future and that when that time comes, the people fighting for it will be ready.

Rep.Cao, District Loyalty, and the Health Care Bill

The Washington Post reports that Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisianna was the only 1 of 177 Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of the democratically backed health care bill. Although this vote was cast after the 218 votes necessary for enactment had been placed, Rep. Cao had defied his party's expectation and strengthened the bill by giving it much needed bi-partisan support.

It has been said that Rep. Cao’s election as a Republican representative of an overwhelmingly democratic district that had seen no Republican representatives since 1890, was fortuitous. The situation required Rep. Cao’s choose between voting in the interest of his mainly African American, two-third Democrat constituents and being loyal to his party.

In this Madisonian system where varied election time scales and districts are to act as a check, Rep. Cao's vote serves as an example of an internal check on the Republican Party. The diversity of constituencies Republican house members represent means that in situations like these they are pressured to vote against the general stance of the party. Had Rep. Cao voted against the health care bill, it would have severely weakened his campaign for 2010 Congressional Elections.

Tea Party On the Capitol

Thousands of protesters gathered on the lawn of the Capitol building on Thursday November 5 to voice their opposition to the House health care bill set for a vote on Saturday November 7. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) had invited them to assemble a weak earlier during an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News program. The event was promoted as a Super Bowl of Freedom, a modern take on the Boston Tea Party. It featured fiery speeches by Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Republican congress members and actor John Voight. Following the rally, the protesters demonstrated in Speaker Pelosi's office. A similar event took place on Saturday, as the bill moved through debate and voting in the House.

Despite the questionable costumes, caricatures and slogans used by protesters, the sheer size of their turnout and their unity around the rallying cry for freedom demands attention. Their opposition to the bill appears to be centered in a belief in the individual's right to freedom from government and staunch opposition to the expansion of government. According to Slate Magazine, many protesters see the health care bill as part of a greater problem of growing government. They appealed to the Framers and the Constitution in their protests, questioning the right of Congress to impose on the individual. Their signs decried the health care bill as impinging on their freedom: "Hands off my Health Care" and "Don't Tread on Me".

The protesters' cry for freedom, in such large numbers, recalls the notion of freedom from government as a core American value. Painting themselves as "freedom-loving Americans" and "freedom fighters", their appeals to freedom as a fundamental American value are evidence in favor of Huntington and Kingdon's ideas of consensus values.

The event also highlighted the plebiscitary pressures on Congress. The protesters' demands to have their voices heard demonstrated a belief that the job of Congress is to listen to and act on the will of the people. While this group represents a minority, the turnout at town hall meetings this summer suggest that the principle of plebiscitary pressures on democracy, on which Thursday's protesters are acting, is widely shared. The meetings, like this protest, illustrated a strong demand by the American people to have their views inform and shape the acts of Congress.

Sources

Beam, Christopher. "Bachmania." Slate Magazine. 5 Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2009.

Millbank, Dana. "No One Said Freedom Was Pretty." Washington Post. 6 Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2009.

Equality of Opportunity: For Americans Only

According to Samuel P. Huntington, Americans live by an "American creed." This creed is a set of values that all Americans believe in and live by. Political debates are therefore just a reallocation of existing values. One such value is the equality of opportunity. We cannot guarantee that all Americans achieve success, but we do believe that all citizens of our nation should have the opportunity to achieve success if they wish to. But how does this idea play out in relationships with other nations? Do we have the right, or even the responsibility, to restrict other nations when they threaten our opportunity to "succeed?"

In September, the US imposed taxes on Chinese tyres. Most recently in October, oil country tubular goods were added the list of taxed goods imported from China. The United States imposes these duties to protect American industries that cannot compete with the low prices of Chinese goods. The less expensive Chinese items threaten the American industries' opportunity to succeed.

If we truly believe in equality of opportunity, then fair trade should exist without question - may the most competitive supplier win. By levying taxes, we become hypocrites.

Walking the Walk? Post-Bush Funding for Faith-Based Charities

For those who threw their support behind Barack Obama and his enlightened campaign promises, his tendency to compromise in office has been a disappointment. There is no denying that the ability to compromise is an invaluable tool, and perhaps it will be what gets him re-elected. However, it leaves some of those who voted for him based on a strongly held political belief wonder why they did. One such promise dealt with the issue of federal funding for faith-based charities. President Obama assured voters last year that while he supported government’s cooperation with religious charity, he would curtail funding to groups that proselytized or discriminated in hiring based on a candidate’s religious beliefs. Before the Bush years, most of these nonprofits who received federal grants simply assumed they could not do these things. However, President Bush issued a memo while in office, presumably to woo his conservative Christian supporters, that essentially permitted them. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State called it “flatly erroneous,” and “legally suspect.” Many groups and voters have urged the new president to remedy the situation.

This is similar to attempts on the part of the federal government to regulate education: they must use the power of the purse. The solution to the problem, if charities would rather be able to discriminate or proselytize, is to turn down federal funding.

On this issue, the President is cautious. He does have many arguably more important crises to deal with, which perhaps delay him from addressing the problem. However, it leads a politically educated observer, who has read Burke’s speech to the constituents of Bristol, to conclude that his judgment is simply in conflict with what those who influence him seem to want. Perhaps he is exercising trusteeship as his representative form of choice in this decision –his judgment to compromise may be a result of his wisdom and disengagement from the passions of the issue.

While health care reform has been drawing national attention, whether Obama's stimulus package is working is brought into question. According to the labor department, American unemployment rate surged to 10.2 percent in October, its highest level in 26 years, as the economy lost another 190,000 jobs.This sharp rise in unemployment created fresh tension into the debate over economic policy in Washington. Republicans point to elevated unemployment as proof that the Obama administration’s $787 billion spending package aimed at stimulating the economy had failed. Labor unions and some Democrats are calling for another round of spending to create more jobs. Democrats seemed to be more optimistic in terms of the economic situation, arguing that moderating pace of job lossess indicates that the economy is recovering.

On November 6th, "President Obama was expected to sign into law a hotchpotch of stealth stimulus measures". First,letting money-losing companies claim tax refunds against profits earned up to five years earlier and an extension to the tax credit for buying a home. Second, extending unemployment benefits for the unemployed to encourage workers to look for a job. In order to implement these two measures, the president would need more money. However, the U.S. deficits are well above the fiscally sustainable level and Congress is reluctant to spend more. Hence, it is unclear if this bill would be passed. What is more problematic to the Democrats is the defeat of democratic candidates in Virginia and New Jersey this Tuesday. In New Jersey , voters who considered health care the top issue went for Gov. Jon Corzine by a 4-to-1 margin; Chris Christie won voters who were concerned about property taxes and corruption.

These numbers signify that voters across America are deeply frustrated over local issues, taxes and government spending. As the Democrats face a huge challenge holding on to independent voters, they need to provide a national narrative that resonates both progressives and independents. To prevent a Republican wave in the midterms,Democrats will need to localize elections and make them a referendum on their opponents.

Referendum to be Recalled?: Maine Voters Frustrate Same-Sex Marriage Supporters

The campaign for same-sex couples to be recognized and married in the eyes of the law will continue in light of Issue 1's loss in Maine's election last Tuesday. While they managed to raise twice as much money as their opponents and convinced Gov. John Baldacci to be the first in the US to sign a same-sex marriage bill this past May, the electorate had other plans. Coming to the voters as a referendum, the people of Maine voted 53-47 against the legislation.

In frustration, same-sex marriage proponents have decided to take their issue back to the place where it seems to work best---the state courts. Yet even then, there is no guarantee that any progress can, or will, be made.

But is it really possible to bypass the majority in favor of a minority interest?

Thanks, in part, to the Framers, we live in a plesbiscitary democracy. Here, the majority influence rules. Rarely is there a time when their interests are bypassed. Unfortunately for supporters, same-sex marriage initiatives have been introduced and struck down in 31 states. Attempts to bypass the opposing same-sex marriage sentiment of the majority could be detrimental for many legislators who count on that same majority for their political careers. Subsequently, it can be assumed that, for the time being, the national sentiment is not to allow same-sex marriage.

Furthermore, no matter what way same-sex marriage proponents go about it, the majority are always going to oppose them. If they were to go to the courts, they could still be overturned by the people, like Californians did a year ago with similar legislation. If they went to Congress and tried to make a constitutional amendment, they would meet the people once again when the amendment was up for ratification, which has to be achieved with two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states legislatures. Considering that about two-thirds of the states already oppose the amendment in their own constitutions, it will require a complete 180 across the country for the movement to really take hold in America.

That's quite a standard to meet; but it seems as if there is one last hope for this kind of legislation to pass---time. As Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank stated, "If you look at the trend, it's true we've been losing, but the margins have gotten closer," thus claiming a new generation of voters may be the ones who will finally see this through at the ballot box because they aren't as adverse to the idea as their more conservative predecessors.

For the time being, it seems that Tocqueville's nameless, faceless silencer will prove a tough obstacle to the same-sex marriage proponent's campaign---at least for now.