Archive for the Politics Category

  • A A A
  • Leisel Bogan

    Much of the flurried media coverage of the RNC convention last week highlighted the weird or the unexpected (Santorum’s “hands” speech, Condoleezza Rice mentioning immigration, Clint Eastwood talking to a chair) but also commented, more than once, that something about the Convention seemed “off”—even boring.

    A recent poll by USA Today/Suffolk University suggests that 90 million Americans will not vote in the November Presidential elections. The lassitude surrounding Decision 2012 (and our political leadership in general) is not isolated to the United States. From the political and economic crisis in Europe, the scandal-plagued leadership transition in China, the disappointing outcome of the Arab Spring, and the slowdown of the global economy, the governments of the world seem, as David Brady and Michael Spence have noted, “paralyzed” by various factors that stall effective policy action.

    Perhaps one of those factors is an information problem.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Bill Whalen

    Ryan’s Expressed Purpose

    I’ll admit: cynic that I am, I didn’t see this one coming.

    Mitt Romney is a cautious politician by nature (some would say: more a technocrat than a politician). He didn’t lack for cautious (i.e., safe) vice-presidential picks. Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor would fall into that category (the second time Pawlenty has been a finalist for the ticket), as would Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

    What, then, prompted Romney to throw the long ball and go with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan?

    Romney, in making the announcement, praised his running mate’s intellect and ability to work across the aisle. Over at The National Review’s website, Robert Costa explains how Ryan fits the profile of a Romney Bain hire – young, smart, uber-confident, career-wise upwardly mobile.

    My question: was Romney’s decision based on preference or necessity? In other words, is Ryan on the GOP ticket because Romney wanted him, or because he had to have him to stand a chance to fall?

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Bill Whalen

    Worst Ticket Ever, Barr None

    We go through this every four years.

    The two major parties choose their presidential candidates. But that doesn’t stop a slew of lesser-known third parties from trying to crash the big party, with a vow to dramatically reshape the political landscape.

    And how does it turn out? Some underdogs actually make it on the ballot. Rarely does one make it to a presidential debate (Ross Perot, yes; Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, no), where 15% in the polls is the price of admission. A select few, historically, actually succeed in impacting the November election.

    And the rest of the bit players?

    “Alex, I’ll take “Forgotten Also-Rans” for $200, please . . .”

    The 2012 election, it turns out, is more of the same (here’s a list of all third-party candidates who’ve toyed with the idea of running). It began with talk of a third-party outfit, Americans Elect, radically changing the process by holding a first-of-its-kind national online party. The group talked boldly of qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states, and even spent $35 million to get on the ballot in some 29 states.

    The problem was: lots of bucks, but no Buck Rogers. Absent a quality candidate, the online movement fizzled earlier this year.

    Write it down: here’s one of the worst prophecies of the 2012 election, courtesy of The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman from July of last year:

    “Write it down: Americans Elect. What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

    Uh-huh.

    In this Olympic year, it’s worth remembering those third-party candidacies that medalled in electoral mischief. That would include:

    • Gold Medal: Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. TR raked in 27% of the vote and 88 electoral votes in 1912 (to just 8 electoral votes for the incumbent GOP President William Howard Taft), handing the election to Woodrow Wilson.
    • Silver Medal: Perot, whose entry, withdrawal and subsequent re-entry to the 1992 election (he’d end up with 18.91% of the vote, but nada in the Electoral College) opened the door to a Democratic victory (Clinton, like Wilson getting 43% of the vote).
    • Bronze Medal: A tie between George Wallace (carried 5 Deep South states in 1968 and threatened to push the contest into the U.S. House of Representatives) and Nader (nothing to show in the way of states or electoral votes, but his presence in New Hampshire and Florida may or may not have cost Al Gore the 2000 election).

    In 2012, three third-party candidates bear watching – two, because there’s a remote chance of impacting the swing states; the third, simply because it’s hard to ignore a train wreck. And that would be the comedienne Roseanne Barr, who’s running on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with the anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whom she met via filmmaker Michael Moore (Peace and Freedom being the party“socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism, and racial equality”).

    No joke.

    In this interview, the former sitcom star (and noted butcher of the national anthem) says America has been “bamboozled and hoodwinked” . . . government is “owned by bankers” . . .  “Americans have been bull—–ed into forgetting that war does not mean freedom . . . When I’m president, I’m gonna outlaw bull—.”

    If elected, Barr says she’d cut defense spending, tax the rich and legalize marijuana.

    Which takes us to the second third-partier worth watching: Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and current Libertarian Party standard-bearer (party slogan: minimum government, maximum freedom”). Johnson, like Roseanne, favors marijuana legalization – which, of course, has branded his campaign as having gone to pot.

    That said, Johnson’s candidacy is more than smoke and mirrors. In a close election, the Libertarian presence could cause mischief in the swing states. Take Colorado, for example. A recent survey by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling gives the state to President Obama, 49%-43%. But add Johnson to the mix (he gets 7%, according to PPP) and the President’s lead over Mitt Romney shrinks to 46%-42% – again, the wild-card nature of the Libertarian vote in that there’s no certain rule as to which major majority suffers more.

    Of course, Romney could lose Colorado and still win the election. That’s far less likely if he comes up short in Virginia (most Romney victory scenarios begin with the GOP nominee recapturing Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia), another state where third-party influence could come into play.

    The problem for Romney in the Old Dominion: Virgil Goode, the former Virginia congressman currently headlining the decidedly conservative Constitution Party ticket. That is, if Goode gets on the ballot: he needs 10,000 signatures by August 24 to qualify for the Virginia ballot (he aims to hand in 20,000). And, if he can survive an investigation into “suspected petition fraud.”

    Goode and the Constitution Party are already on the ballot in 17 states. But it’s the potential of that 18thstate – Virginia – that has both the Romney and Obama worrying (potentially, he could pick off both steadfast conservatives who’d vote for Romney, as well as lifelong Democrats who normally would tow the party line but like Goode from his twelve years in Congress).

    In other words, it’s no laughing matter – unless you’re thinking about Roseanne Barr.

    Print Friendly
    Russell Berman

    Candidates in Europe

    The US Presidential election will be won and lost on the domestic economy, so Mitt Romney’s recent trip to three capitals –London, Jerusalem and Warsaw—provided some distraction in the summer lead-up to the party conventions and the start of the real campaign season in the fall. His itinerary gave the presumptive Republican candidate an opportunity to profile himself to the American electorate: as a successful executive who had organized the Salt Lake City Olympics, as a firm supporter of Israel (in contrast to President Obama who has refrained from visiting there while in office), and as an advocate of the liberty of Eastern Europe. The warm support from Lech Walesa this summer will serve him well in the ballot boxes of western Pennsylvania in November.

    Yet Romney is not the first American presidential candidate to campaign through European capitals, and his travels abroad invite a comparison with Barack Obama’s tour just four years ago, especially the main event, the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin in front of an enormous crowd of 200, 000 or more. That demonstration of Obama’s charisma and popularity in Europe certainly strengthened his credibility among American voters, frustrated with the apparent fraying of the Atlantic alliance during the administration of George W. Bush. Obama promised to calm the waters, restore old friendships and build a robust cooperation between the US and Europe.

    The Romney visit is a chance to reevaluate the Obama visit and ask: has Obama fulfilled the hope to change the trans-Atlantic divide?

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    David Brady

    Earlier this week, David Brady, Professor of Political Science and the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, sat down with EconTalk host and Hoover senior fellow Russ Roberts to talk about the presidential and congressional races.

    Brady argues that while the economy favors the challenger, Mitt Romney, current polling data gives a slight edge to President Obama in both the popular vote and the electoral college. The data all suggest that the House will stay Republican and the Senate will either go slightly Republican or be tied. Brady also discusses why this may change over the next few months, the importance of the independent vote, and Romney’s strategy in choosing a running mate.

    Listen to Brady on EconTalk.

    Print Friendly
    Bill Whalen

    To the question: why would Mitt Romney decide to visit Israel, of all places, a nation with zero electoral votes (ok, a few expatriate voters)?

    This answer: (a) because he can – and President Obama hasn’t since taking office; (b) it makes for good campaign optics; (c) it makes scads of political sense.

    Allow me to explain . . .

    1)  Thank you, Al Gore or whoever invented the Internet, for making it possible to find out post-haste that Barack Obama has made 24 presidential trips to 46 countries, none of them to Israel, since becoming America’s 44th President. The commander-in-chief some conservatives mock as “Chosen One” has been in the neighborhood – Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia – but he’s yet to spend quality time with the “chosen people.” Watch for Romney, during his pledge to “do the opposite” on Israel, to promise a first-term return to the Promised Land.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Russell Berman

    Fallout from the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act will stretch through the presidential election and beyond, and legal commentators have plenty of questions to address: the limitations on the Commerce Clause, the ambiguity in the relationship of taxes to penalties, the implications for federalism in the treatment of Medicaid and, perhaps most ominously, the extent to which the Chief Justice may have been swayed by the political campaign waged in the press. None of these topics will be clarified quickly. While conservative commentators have expressed divergent evaluations of the outcome, there is one point of agreement: the Affordable Care Act represents a major increase in the reach of federal power, profoundly rearranging relationships among Washington, the states and individuals. The health care debate is a struggle over constitutional order.

    Just as this drama has been playing out in Washington, the potential role of the judiciary in preserving democracy and the rule of law has come to the fore across the Atlantic in a remarkably similar conflict. A constitutional conflict is emerging through the Euro crisis.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    James Ceaser

    Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is a tragic setback to the nascent movement of  “political constitutionalism.” For three years, beginning with the emergence of the Tea Party, millions of citizens joined together in trying to settle the broad meaning of the Constitution through political means, by public debate and by efforts to elect public officials committed to a certain understanding of the purposes of the nation’s governing document. Courts should not be the sole arbiters of certain constitutional questions, especially those dealing with the extent and limits of government power. The political process has its own role to play in constitutional decision-making.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Editor

    Over the next week, Advancing a Free Society will publish a series of pieces related to the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius. The Forum will cover the law, the medicine, the economics, and the politics surrounding this landmark ruling.

    Below, renowned legal scholar and Hoover Senior Fellow Richard Epstein reviews the decision on the Medicaid expansion. According to Epstein, this decision is “welcome,” although not perfect, after the “unhappy performance” of Chief Justice Roberts on the individual mandate.

    Earlier today, Hoover research fellow Bill Whalen provided his assessment of what this generally unexpected Supreme Court decision means for the presidential campaigns and, perhaps, Election Day.

    Follow The Hoover Forum on the Supreme Court’s health care ruling by subscribing to the Advancing a Free Society RSS feed or subscribing to the new Hoover Daily Report.

    Print Friendly