What the switch by Arlen Specter say about the state of the party system in the United States

Fiorina argues that "those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically "correct" party than they were in earlier periods." When looking at the recent actions of Senator Arlen Specter, the Senior Senator from the state of Pennsylvania, we see that even career politicians are prone to switching parties. However, this does not come as much of a surprise to some who study Congressional behavior, or to those who are simply political junkies. Specter has crossed party lines countless times, and had recently angered members of his former Republican party when he voted to support President Obama's stimulus package (being one of three Republicans in the Senate to cross party lines).

But Specter's move has more to do with politics than ideology. Currently, he is facing reelection in 2010, and Republicans in his home state are angered by his behavior. Why would this matter for a careerist such as Specter? Because nobody, even a multiple term Senator and famous face in the Senate, is guaranteed reelection. His move to the Democratic party was sheerly political, thinking he would have a better chance at getting reelected as a Democrat than a Republican. Odds are, due to recent polling, Specter would lose the Republican primary to other candidates who represent the Republican base more effectively.

What does this say about the state of the party system in the United States? These days it is clear which positions parties take on policies. The two-party system is clearly defined, unlike the weak party system of the 1970's. The nationalization of politics has helped to increase the consistency between ideology and party identification.

As stated, Fiorina's argument echoes Aldrich in that there is a rise of activists who are purists and not patronage seekers. Fiorina argues that America is not as divided as it would appear to be, and the divisions we see are mainly due to activists and interest groups on the extreme sides of the political spectrum gaining heavier influence. As participation in democracy increases, there is an increased demand for these activists. There will always be differences on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc., however, these divisions are not as deep and dividing as they may appear to be. Statistically, there is close to no real division at all. If there is one thing Fiorina emphasizes, it is that a choice between political candidates differs from a choice between policy positions or platforms. A vote for a political candidate is a vote for a coalition, not a mandate on policy preferences.

We currently reside in a stronger party system than we have seen in the past. So much so, that a prominent member of the GOP has crossed the aisle in an effort to retain his seat. If the party system was weaker, switching parties would not have been a necessary because the division of parties would not have been so apparent. A candidate running as one party would appear to be the same as the other. But in this era, the party being a "brand name" goes farther than ever. In both 2006 and 2008, Republicans were swept out of office. Not because the individual candidate was performing poorly, but because they had an "R" after their name. The Republican coalition/brand name was rejected by the voters (who are the consumers). If you are marketing a product, it must be consumable. This resulted in dozens of GOP'ers being thrown out of office. Some of these representatives did a good job for their constituency while in Congress, but the voters have a very short memory when it comes to politics. What happens today will be forgotten tomorrow.

Elites are as polarized as the political parties themselves, so how is something like this possible in 2009? Simply stated, you shelve what you must in order to be reelected. The need to appeal to one wing of elites is a non-issue when those elites are unable to win yourself an election. Now Specter will appeal to a new group of interests and elites. The process will start over again. Even though Specter claims he will not be "the automatic 60th vote for the Democrats," he will be forced to make concession to his ideology (whatever that may be) in order to gain some rank and seniority in the party he just decided to join. He must impress the Democrats, and if he is reelected in 2010, the DNC may be willing to give him something in return (such as a Subcommittee Chairmanship). Now it turns into a waiting game. In the event that Specter is reelected, we will be able to see to what extent the elites are polarized, and whether or not the two-party system is clearly defined.

Adjudicating the dispute between Bartels and Frank

Thomas Frank, the author of "Lie Down for America," claims that some people in the electorate are simply voting wrong. Why would people in lower income districts support the GOP, a party that traditionally supports deregulation and corporate welfare? The argument is rather compelling. He goes on to claim that the Republicans use moral conservatism to vote against their economic self-interest. Frank makes a series of generalizations in an effort to understand why people vote for a party that overall does not have their best interest in mind. Overall, he claims that the GOP portrays itself as a party for "normal people" and Democrats as "the party of a wealthy, pampered, arrogant elite that lives as far as it can from real Americans." This is the beginning of deep partisan divides which split the country into "two Americas."

Included in his argument are generalizations regarding the people with "red state" mentality, and how they are viewed amongst themselves: they are humble, reverent, courteous, kind and cheerful, loyal, and a regular "down-home working stiff." But more than anything, they have a tendency to be immune to class, in that they see past class division, which is a strong reason for their support of a party that does not seem to represent their problems they face in day-to-day life. One point that had been made in the past is that people who live in rural area, such as Kansas, vote Republican even though the party does not seem to represent them because they have worked hard for everything they have, and do not like the "handout" policies of the Democratic party. Economic policies are becoming less important in the eyes of the voters, and this is the cause for the lower income demographics supporting the GOP. More than economics are "values." These values only matter because the Democratic Party "has either largely accepted the conservative economic agenda or is perceived to have largely accepted the conservative economic agenda. Either way, economic issues are effectively removed from the table, and social issues are highlighted. This is important because economic issues are the area where working-class voters are historically most liberal."

However, Bartels argues that Frank's generalizations are wrong, and that the people who vote for the GOP are not "voting wrong" at all. He is troubled by Frank's claim that its "Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized." Additionally, he takes aim at Frank's claim that  “sturdy blue-collar patriots,” “small farmers,” “devoted family men,” and “working-class guys in midwestern cities” are all contributing their share to this “panorama of madness and delusion”. This "delusion" is the GOP actually taking care of the people who vote for them, since the party consists mainly of "lawyers, millionaires, and Harvard grads pushing an agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, free trade and corporate welfare."

Bartles points out that most of Frank's claim is about white working class people, not taking into account other demographics that may be affected by the same problems. To Bartles, this creates a distorted picture of the electorate, and weakens Frank's argument. He claims that there is actually an increase among working class whites for the Democratic party. "Since 1976, Democratic presidential candidates have received 50% of the votes from the lower-income segment of Frank’s white working class, 43% from the middle-income segment, and 35% from the upper-income segment." Bartles states that material economic circumstances play an even larger role in voter decision and affiliation than in the past. More than anything "the overall decline in Democratic support among voters in Frank’s white working class over the past half-century is entirely attributable to the demise of the Solid South as a bastion of Democratic allegiance."  When addressing these "values" that are so salient among the electorate, "these comparisons make it clear that, whatever Frank’s observations may suggest, the growing importance of social issues in American electoral politics over the past 20 years is mostly not a working-class phenomenon." When comparing issue by issue, cultural wedge issues generally do not seem to have been more potent among Frank’s working-class white voters than among better-educated white voters.

Overall, the arguments made by Bartles are rather compelling. However, Frank makes generalizations that were not necessarily rectified by Bartles. It is still questionable as to why rural low-income populations vote for Republicans when the party platform has close to no interest for their better interest. The only answer is that the voters are tricked into voting GOP by the use of divisive wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Using these "values" techniques, the GOP is able to siphon working class people who should be voting for the Democratic Party. This most certainly played into the 2008 election cycle, when the GOP attempted to appeal to "real Americans" by campaigning in these rural areas and attempting to paint Barack Obama as "un-American." Although a state such as Indiana, which is ripe with working-class people, vote for the Democratic Party, a rural state such as Kansas or Oklahoma still maintained to vote for the GOP.

This is a situation that warrants further study, in that certain members of the electorate seem to be making decisions based on something outside of party platform. There is a good section of the voting block that is looking outside of what the party will deliver. Although the GOP trumpets wedge issues in order to wrangle "values voters," something must be done to show them that the GOP does not have their best interest in heart. The Republican Party, especially in 2004, made a series of empty promises based on "values" in an effort to gain the support of its evangelical base, such as pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. How would such an issue as this be more important than the economy, health care, education, employment, or national security? Additionally, does the "tough guy" image the GOP campaigned on in 2004 resonate with voters in any way? 2008 was much different than elections of the past, due to changing tides in national political philosophy, but the GOP still maintained to go after the "values voters" in which Frank describes. Between the two men, Frank's argument is correct, and much more compelling.

House votes to support Obama's budget blueprint without GOP support

The House Of Representative passed a nonbinding budget blueprint, marking Obama's 100th day in office. The measure, which was an outlive of the budget to be passed later this year, stands at $3.4 trillion. Yet again, we see the Republican caucus in the House strongly opposed to the measure, without a single member of the party voting to support it 223-193.

In addition to the mandatory and discretionary spending seen in most budgets of the past, this one in particular contains a $1 trillion expansion of the health care system, in an effort to provide all Americans with affordable health care coverage. The measure trumpets "energy, health care and education."

"Not a single House Republican voted for the measure. Seventeen Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning districts, voted against it. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure later Wednesday." Additionally, "As a result, Democrats opted against extending Obama's signature $400 tax cut for most workers and cut $10 billion from his budget for non-defense programs passed by Congress each year."

Allegedlly, under this plan, the federal deficit would drop to $523 billion by 2014.
Yet again, Republicans are unable to present an alternative to the Democratic policies put forth in Congress.

1. With Republicans claiming that this budget outline still increases the deficit, how can the GOP make the claim without offering an alternative?
   
2. How long can the GOP go without presenting any viable policy alternatives in either chamber of Congress?
3. Will leaders such as Paul Ryan (R-WI) gain heavier notariety or heavier criticism for being the face of the opposition in the budget process?

GOP continues its struggles in Congress

Three months into the 111th Congress, the GOP is still struggling to gain its bearings. Although vehemently opposed to the policies of the Obama administration, the Republican leadership has yet to come out with any viable alternative, even to the budget. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he does not want to "create a target" for the Obama administration by publishing an alternative budget, leaving it at "The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much at a moment when we can least afford it." McConnell is still pushing for GOP governors to return the billions in stimulus dollars given out from the federal government for economic recovery.

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, as Democrats prepare to ready themselves to battle over health care and education reform. This may be the opportunity that the GOP was looking for, and are preparing for a long fight on Capitol Hill later this year. As we have come to know, a president will do all he can in his first year in office as his support waivers as time goes by (even within his own party).

Even further, "a CBS survey found only 31 percent of those polled reporting a favorable view of Republicans, a decline from 36 percent the month before last fall's elections. Polls also shows voters identify themselves as Democrats in larger numbers than as Republicans." This is the obvious sign of a party in constant decline.

With the GOP still fledgling:

1. Can Congressional Republicans really afford to not publish alternatives to the Obama policies they are so opposed to? In other words, continue to be the "party of 'no'"?
   
2. Is there a floor for how low support for the party can go, or will the floor be its collapse?


3. With polling so low, what can the GOP do to revive itself considering there is just over a year before most have to struggle for reelection?

From Political Collapse to New Party Creation: An Outline for the GOP Replacement

Modern American politics close to prevents the complete collapse of one of our two major political parties. However, what would happen if one did, in particular, the Republican party? The problems the GOP is currently encountering, both in the electorate and within itself, is nothing new in the realm of political trends and closely represents what occurred to the Democrats from 2002-2006; absent of leadership, a clear platform, and lacking electoral control of what used to be their strongholds. In this hypothetical situation, the Republican party collapses after the 2010 election cycle. Unable to maintain the slim presence they had in 2008, the party was unable to hold what they had, let alone have any gains in either the House or the Senate. Members began to defect, as we have known, because political office holders seek a party that will not only aide in their reelection, but have the potential for majority control. A new party rises from the old ashes of the GOP: the Modern American Party (MAP).

For any party to succeed, it must have a party platform that appeals to the electorate. Unfortunately for the GOP, the lack of major party platform closely mirrored the collapse of the Whig party in 1856, and its refusal to address the issue of slavery. Bearing in mind that the epic collapse of the GOP was due to its inability to appeal to voters, the Modern American party would need to craft a platform which would not precisely mirror that of the GOP, but at the same time, be able to syphon off the disenfranchised former Republicans, while simultaneously appealing to a wider, more diverse group across the country. A party stands as a brand name. Something that the voters want to consume. However we must be aware that the brand name must be consumable. Therefore, a general party outline (but not limited to) would be as follows:

• Strict constitutional interpretation of laws and bylaws which apply to both the role of government, and the activity therein.
• While maintaining a responsibility of strict economic reforms (minimal government spending), the party must be socially moderate, allowing it to appeal to races and demographics that the former GOP was unable to harness. In other words, truly creating a "big tent" party. This would be difficult, seeing as how most of the former GOP was socially conservative, but its new revived mission of "getting people elected" would be a top priority.
• Stating that health care, education, social welfare, and other former government assistance programs are the responsibility of the individual. This would, at the same time, require a carefully crafted message, as not to immediately turn off those who are dependent on such programs.
• Emphasize the original foundation of our Federalist society, giving power back to the states, and letting such issues as gay marriage, gun control, and abortion left to the referendums of the individuals. These referendums would also be a key step to instituting more of a direct democracy on the sate level.
• The United States shall not take any intervention in international affairs that does not immediately threaten the United States, and shall not engage in nation building techniques.
• Lowering both personal income taxes and corporate taxes, while maintaining labor organizations. This is a two-pronged approach to appeal to both the businesses, and the unions therein.
• Being socially moderate (as opposed to conservative, and leaving issues to the states) the party (while in control of the government) shall ensure the equal rights and protections of minorities, the disabled, and the elderly, regardless of sexual orientation or social class.
• The only government spending increases shall go to national defense, amassing the largest defense-only military in the world.
• Institute import substitution industrialization, having American companies produce the goods for Americans to consume, while cutting down on imports to reduce the national trade deficit. Once rectified, importing may resume at a set rate to be reassigned every two years.
• Inter party rules would state that any action or voice on the floor of either chamber of Congress would require a written declaration of viable alternatives to the status quo. No member speaks without having a real solution for the problem in question.

After having drafted a national party platform, there must first be strategy for electoral implementation (considering we cannot have leaders of a party without any members, or anyone serving in government). Such a strategy for new political implementation could be as follows:

• Attempting to work from the local level upwards would be completely ineffective. The Republican party has completely collapsed, and the Modern American party would need to swiftly enter Congressional and Senatorial races across America. There will be no gradual introduction spanning many years for voters to "get familiar" with the party. It will be branded as the only viable option to combat the (now) one-party system of government run by the Democrats.
• Surveying the electoral trends from 2000-2010, district shop. Finding Congressional districts which were once friendly to the former GOP, enter the race where the GOP left off. The key to electoral success would be to enter in states that used to be in control of the GOP, which later fell to the Democrats. Such states may include Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and attempting to make gains in the Northwest (as the Republicans had done in their first push to the national stage) in states such as Oregon and Washington. Stronghold states such as Montana, North/South Dakota, and stretching down to the South would also be implemented, but an equal amount of effort as what is put into the new states.
• Recruit candidates who are highly appealing to the electorate. This would entail not simply finding a well financed doctor/lawyer, but someone of individual state significance. This could include former members of the GOP (who are now out of a job). Most of the losses the GOP felt in 2010 were not candidate based, but rather voter resentment towards the party's apathy for real solutions and reform. Most voters would gladly have their representative back.
• Concentrating on Congressional elections (being on a micro-political scale, and winning smaller constituencies) would give an immediate base for the party. As stated, the introduction of the Modern American party would not be gradual, and would have up to 150 candidates running in elections across the country in 2012. Conceding the presidential election to the Democrats, the MAP would save resources until the 2016 election after (hopefully) picking up gains in 2014. This would present the perfect opportunity to serve as the dissenting voice to the controlling party. Using the written declarations rule of the MAP, alternatives would be published in national publications. Campaign money would be used to advertise the party's activities and current political agenda. The MAP would be running a permanent campaign.

Who would be the leaders of such a party? That would be determined by a straight party vote among the MAP caucus. Going back to its direct democracy principles of referendums, the party would determine leadership and new policy positions by majority caucus voting through elected officials and the leaders of the party (which would also be chosen by caucus vote by the party as a whole). There would be one rule in effect: no party leader would be allowed to have served in a leadership position in another party (in other words, preventing any for GOP members to ascend to a leadership position, due to this simply looking like the old party that had collapsed). These barred members could serve their constituencies through committee assignments, but not have leadership of the party itself (either directly running the party through the chairmanship of the party, serving as a floor leader, or eventually serving as chairman of a Congressional committee.

What else needs to be done in order to plan for the rigors of political competition? It would be easy to field an array of candidates across the country, considering the electorate would be appalled by a one-party government. In hopes of amassing 150 candidates across the country, the MAP would have a target of getting at least 20% seated. In other words, sending 30 members to Congress (the number going to the House and Senate, respectively, would be up in the air) and creating a presence to build a base of support to then turn to state campaigns. After having won 30 seats in Congress, the MAP would implement a "top-down" strategy. By this, the MAP would first win seats in Congress to gain instant national credibility, with which they could (in the next election cycle) run candidates for governorships, down to mayoralships, and state legislatures in between. This is obviously a long-term strategy to gain control of individual states, but the national presence in Congress would give the MAP credibility in local elections ("If they can serve the country, they can certainly serve my state/municipality" etc.).

Assessing the plan for the MAP, we would hope that the 30 seat threshold would give the party national recognition and serve as a stepping stone for further political gain. It would not be wise to immediately run for the presidency, seeing as how the party needs to remain credible. Running in its first years of existence and losing would be devastating to the future of the party, and its credibility as a viable party would be quickly lost. The strategy would be to continue gains in Congress, until it approached majority status. Although this may take many years, running a solid MAP candidate with national recognition after years of familiarity with the party platform could result in down-ticket voting and launch both the presidential candidate into office, along with the new members needed to attain majority status.

After first gaining notoriety in 2012, the MAP will continue where the GOP left off. Being strictly fiscally conservative and socially moderate, the MAP created the "big tent" needed to stretch across the nation, winning seats in Congress, and later governorships and state legislatures. It would not be long before the MAP achieved the greatest victory of all: the presidency after less than two decades in existence.

Ambitious? Yes. Possible? Yes. Probable? ...

Former GOP Congressman to challenge Dodd in Senate race

Rob Simmons, the former GOP Congressman who represented Connecticut's 2nd Congressional district from 2001-2007, is planning on challenging incumbent Senator Chris Dodd in 2010.

Simmons, who lost his reelection to the House by just 83 votes in 2006, is proclaiming that Chris Dodd needs to be "held accountable" for his hand in the financial crisis. Dodd, who serves as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has been blamed for taking heavy contributions from financial institutions which later received federal bailout funds, along with writing a provision which allowed CEO's to receive bonuses after having accepted bailout money.

Simmons represented most of eastern Connecticut, which is Democratic-leaning in voting trends. However, Simmons is a rare breed of moderate Republican, a dying force in New England, and has a history of splitting with the GOP on key issues such as abortion rights and the environment. His failure to win reelection in 2006 has been a factor that some Democratic activists have pointed out, saying the voters already rejected Simmons once, and he will be rejected again. But recent polling puts Simmons ahead of Dodd by double-digits.

Facing an uphill battle, Simmons must confront a tough primary battle against a current state representative. Simmons claims he "just wants to hold Chris Dodd accountable." With Simmons seeking to unseat Dodd (if he wins the primary battle within his own party):

1. Would the victory of Simmons over Dodd be a reversal of the recent political trends seen in 2006 and 2008, or is this more of an individual constituency factor?
2. Will Chris Dodd, a five-term Senator, really face a true challenge for reelection, or are the polling numbers bloated such as the early hypothetical match-ups of McCain v. Obama (showing McCain would win)?
3. Can Simmons stand to be the beacon of hope that the GOP so desperately needs by unseating a long-term incumbent Democratic Senator in a left-leaning state?

From Party Formation to Party Collapse: Could the GOP Go the Way of the Whigs?

Does the GOP face a real risk of becoming a regional party incapable of competing for the presidency or congressional majorities after the recent turn in electoral trends, or is it part of a regular political cycle as the Democrats saw in 1994 and 2002? When attempting to solve this rather perplexing question, we must look at both the short-term and long-term historical trends which led to America's most classic example of demise and party collapse, the Whig party in 1857.

It is of no doubt that the GOP is in a downward political spiral, and hemorrhaging elected members on all levels; local, state, and federal. However, the complete collapse and dismantling of a major political party in modern America is close to impossible (even though in politics, nothing is "impossible"). The current GOP is at a standstill, and has been having recent difficulties in formulating strong policy objectives and recruit strong party leaders. To understand the relevance, we must look at what the Whigs once had, and what they were left with.

The Whig party had similar problems as the modern GOP, but this was in an era of American expansion, and the ensuing deep divides of the slavery debate. The Whigs, in their short tenure on the national stage (even though they held dozens of seats in Congress, along with four presidents having been Whigs) never developed a national policy platform and left their only main objective to be gaining political office. Formed in 1833 due to growing opposition to Andrew Jackson (who was at the time currently president) and his Democratic Party, the party was a large coalition, but existed for just over two decades until its collapse in 1856. The Republican party capitalized on the this collapse due to those very rising concerns of slavery. The 1852-1853 elections were the beginning of the end for the Whigs, when they held only 71 House seats and 22 seats in the Senate. Two years later, the Democrats gained a heavier majority in the Senate, but the Whigs were unable to take advantage of their inability to gain in the House. The growing Republicans (who were mainly a regional party of the North) were able to caucus with an outright majority of 108 seats, and the largest minority in the Senate with 15 seats. In 1857, the Whig party (once a commanding alliance of office seekers) was simply gone.

How does the Whig party of the mid 19th century relate to the troubles of the Republican party in the 21st? To best understand, we must first see that the main purpose of a political party is to gain political office. Second, when selecting a political party, candidates would ask themselves "what party has the best chance of gaining majority status?" Simply stated, once the slavery debate divided the Whigs into anti- and pro- factions, most decided to join the new Republicans. As it stands now, there are only two major political parties in America. Candidates must make a choice of whether to run as a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. Of course, one could run under any party label, but with a party label come a brand name. "Candidate X - Republican." The party affiliation goes a long way into placing a candidate along a political spectrum, even though in the current electoral system mostly all elections are candidate-centered as opposed to a party-candidate.

The current GOP, for as much as it seems to be heading down the same path as the Whigs, and thus running the risk of becoming a regional party incapable of taking on national elections, will not face the same collapse as history would tell. Although the GOP is facing the same decentralized party leadership as the party whose place it had taken in the mid-19th century, Duverger's law currently (nearly) prevents any third party from arising. This law states that voters vote strategically, and when faced with the prospect of their candidate (as an example, a third party candidate) losing an election, they will vote for the next best candidate of their choice, as to not "throw their vote away." The best example is the following: You prefer candidate C, even though they stand no chance of winning election. You prefer candidate B over A. Since you know C will not win, you would rather vote for B to make sure A does not win. Hence, the never ending cycle of the denial of entry of third party candidates.

What the current GOP faces is nothing more than a basic cycle in American politics. Once the GOP centralizes their leadership and drafts a platform for the 21st century, they will have a resurgence once again. Never forget that what the GOP is currently facing is the same as the Democrats did in 2002, when the DNC was heavily criticized for lacking a strong political platform, and was absent of any real viable policy alternatives. But as we had seen, the political tides shifted without the Democrats having to lift a finger, and were easily handed sizable victories in 2006 and 2008. Sometime after the 2002 election cycle, Karl Rove once proclaimed that they had created a "permanent Republican majority." Only six years later the GOP is a conglomerate of factions struggling to create a message that resonates with the electorate, and has to play a game of "wait and see" when deciding how to counter Democratic actions. When their resurgence will occur is impossible to predict. What happens today will be forgotten tomorrow, and what happens tomorrow could change the course of politics as we know it. One thing is certain, however, and that is the GOP will rebound.

Of course, there is always a possibility of a third party gaining moderate support, most likely on a local or state level. Perhaps the factions within parties themselves will create new parties all together. The New Democrats Coalition could splinter off the Democratic party itself, and form a new party for fiscally conservative Democrats. But both of our major parties are heterogeneous in nature and have the "big tent" message. Although you may not agree with 100% of a party platform, you pick the party that you either feel has the best chance of winning, or most closely represents your ideals. There are pro-life members of Congress who are Democrats, and pro-gun control Republicans who serve as well. These factions within the parties do create tension, but when banded together, they create a coalition capable of winning elected office. The GOP will not disappear off the electoral map. If anything, the red states will become more red as their values and ideologies are threatened. No matter who the candidates are, odds are there will not be a Democratic-controlled Congressional delegation from Alabama. The flips in electoral control (when the Democrats used to own the South, as the Republicans owned the North) are rather dated, and the great expansionism of this country is over. The instability seen in the past, in both the growing nature of the United States and the weak institutionalization of Congress, is over. The greatest attribute of a healthy democracy is heavy partisanship and a clear division of political parties. Today, we see heavier divides than ever before. These divides are the very reason the GOP will eventually rebound, and the Democratic party will possibly someday once again serve in the capacity of the minority.

NRA still has sway in Democratic controlled Congress

The National Rife Association, with approximately four million members, is beginning to flex its political muscle with the Democrats in control of both Congress and the Executive. The NRA threatened to show its influence when the measure to give Washington, D.C. a full-voting representative in the House passed in the lower chamber of Congress. Suddenly, the bill was stalled in the Senate.

"The National Rifle Association's lobbyists made it clear to lawmakers that they believed the bill should include a measure to overturn the capital's gun control laws. Left mostly unsaid, but well understood by all 535 members of the House and Senate, was that failure to do so would unleash a barrage of political pain on resisters."

The NRA's political action committee spent $15.6 million in the last two election cycles, donating money to candidates who are "pro-gun" and more to the challengers of others who oppose them.

With the NRA readying itself for a battle against those in Congress who oppose them (regarding lifting the gun control laws in DC):

1. Do you think this is a situation meant for compromise? Is public safety going to take a back seat to politics?
2. Do you feel this is the perfect situation for the two parties to fully distinguish themselves from one another (the need for a clear divide and definition of what each party represents/stands for)?
3. Can Democrats maintain their majority status while taking on such a controversial issue? Would taking a "Democrats are for certain gun restrictions" stance damage the party, or make them look stronger?

Obama and the Impossible Mandate

Did Barack Obama earn an electoral "mandate" through his overwhelming victory in 2008? To determine whether or not, we must understand that "mandate" is a rather relative term. What would define a "mandate?" Simply winning an election does not give authority to dictate terms to a heterogeneous America, nor decentralized political parties. Other considerations must be examined, such as political climate, and recent electoral trends.

To decide whether or not Obama has/had an electoral mandate, we would need a similar situation from past events to compare it to. One such is the 1984 reelection by Ronald Reagan over his Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Reagan won handily, garnering 49 of 50 states, minus Minnesota and Washington, D.C. Simply looking at the electoral map, one would think that such a victory would result in Reagan having a political "mandate." However, he was reelected with 58.8% of the popular vote, not breaking the 60% threshold that "in a close election a vote split as large as 60-40 would be understood as very large, but the disadvantaged party nonetheless would be supported by a very large minority of that group." In other words, simply winning an election, even on a national level, does not result in absolute support for either your platform, nor your party.

Barack Obama won the general election with 52.9% of the popular vote. Again, by looking at the electoral map and counting 365 out of a possible 538 electoral votes may seem like a hefty victory. But Obama's victory goes much further than him merely winning the presidency. Taking into account electoral trends that began to shift in 2006, we have witnessed changes not only in presidential politics, but in congressional and gubernatorial respects as well.

The 2008 election (and the 2006 mid-terms which preceded it) was more of a social change relating to the type of policies that the general population would desire, as opposed to the policies that had led the country for the eight years prior. While Ronald Reagan enjoyed his electoral victory, he still found the House of Representatives in control of the Democrats. Barack Obama, on the other hand, had Congressional control in both the House and Senate shift to his party in 2006, and earned heavier gains by down-ticket voting during his election in 2008. This was due to the electorate having both frustrations and anxieties over many issues that had surmounted in the previous six years, mainly revolving around the war in Iraq (and the policies therein) along with a litany of scandals involving Republicans (ex: Tom DeLay).

What was seen in both the 2006/2008 elections was a "mandate" not just for President Obama, but for Congress as well. This can be argued by the newly formed "blue states" such as Virginia. Once a Republican stronghold, Virginia now has a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators, and the majority of the Congressional delegation. It symbolizes a political shift that counters the "we live in a center-right country" argument. Control of Congress (at least in the House) is overwhelming, and the Democrats' power has already been exercised. The Senate, while having 58 seated (emphasizing "seated" pending Minnesota) Democrats, encounters more problems exercising its power due to the Senate being a more moderate chamber (due to its members being elected "at-large" and having to appeal to massive constituencies). But nonetheless, the shift in power to the Democratic party has been renowned. Pending their policies take shape and are received positively by the electorate, they could be poised for even further gains in both Congress and in the number of Governorships they possess.

Does Barack Obama have an electoral mandate? Yes. Not due solely to his election, but with other political considerations taken into account, including the shift in political ideologies felt across the nation.

Since he has this "mandate," what does it mean and how does he exercise it? Simply put, not much. The term "mandate" is similar to "political capital" in that it is up to the individual to determine what exactly that means. It can be easily seen that the American people were desperate for a difference in the politics they had experienced from 2001-2009, and Barack Obama is obligated to take action. By being elected, the people chose him as the person whose ideologies best matched their own. But there is a great amount of difficulty in exercising this "mandate" which he seemed to earn. Decentralized parties, such as his own, are forced to make concessions on policy objectives. Members have formed splinter groups such as The New Democrats Coalition and Blue Dog Democrats who are more moderate or fiscally conservative. There is nothing that can be done by President Obama to make members of his own party vote a certain way. Of course, he can "go public" and hope that the American people push their respective representatives to vote a certain way. But many of these representatives who belong to such groups come from "purple states" where their reelection will be dependent on garnering the support of independents and some conservatives.

Barack Obama finds himself in a grey area, where although his party controls both chambers of Congress, he is encountering opposition from his own party that may hinder his legislative agenda. The electorate will not remember what Obama wanted to  do, but what he got done. Even though he will try to use his political "mandate" to push for reforms, it has yet to be seen whether or not he is capable of centralizing his own party under his leadership.

Exit Polling and Collective Conclusions

On November 4th, 2008, more than 125 million people went to the polls to perform their civic duty and cast their vote for President of the United States. Unlike elections over the past few decades, there was an unpresedented number of new voters that went to the polls to decide whether John McCain, the Republican candidate and Senator from Arizona, or Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate and Senator from Illinois, would be the right choice to lead our country through this nation’s most trying time in more than 60 years. 

Barack Obama won the historic election by a margin of 53%-46%, and more than 8 million votes (NBC). Winning the popular vote seemed to be easy, due to the surge of African American voters and the overall larger ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans. But as we had seen in the election of 2000, the popular vote, in the end, is not the most important factor in claiming victory. The Electoral College, the system of allocating electors awarded for a state’s overall victory, takes a Constitutional priority over the popular vote. How did Senator Obama manage to pull off such a wide margin of victory, winning the Electoral College 365-173, where only 270 Electoral votes are needed? Part of this key to victory revolved around the Latino population in several key “swing states.” Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida (one of the most coveted states to win by either side) were all won by Barack Obama with the help of Latino voters that went to the polls, and voted for the Senator (now President) by a margin of 2-1, roughly 66%-31%, according to exit polling reported by various news agencies. For the sake of conciseness, we will only examine Colorado and Florida for this example.

The state of Colorado, the host of the 2008 Democratic Convention, was decided for Barack Obama, and its 9 Electoral votes were awarded to the Democratic candidate. By an overall margin of 54%-45%, it was roughly the same margin as seen in Nevada. However, this state has a much larger population, and voters cast their votes which resulted in 1,216,793 for Obama and 1,020,135 for McCain. This was an overall margin of victory equal to approximately (just under) 197,000 votes. How did the Latino population come into play in a state like Colorado? According to NBC news exit polling, Latinos made up about 13% of the overall voters in the state, or roughly 291,000 Latino voters. Of the Latinos who voted, the broke 61%-38% for Barack Obama. This translates into 177,000 Latino votes cast for Barack Obama in a state that was decided by approximately 197,000. In other words, had all the Latinos who voted for Barack Obama stayed home on election day, and only those who voted for John McCain cast their ballot, the state would have been decided by only 20,000. 

Again seeing the trend of a deepening victory on behalf of the Democratic candidate due to the Latino population shows how viable their vote is in such elections. In a state such as Colorado, which voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, we see a new trend developing that is beginning to reshape electoal politics and presidential campaigning as we know it. Colorado, which is one of the Western states that had been targeted by both Democrats and Republicans, is one of the key indicators that both issues politics and identity politics have catalyzed the electorate, and such issues as comprehensive immigration reform have a major impact on for whom the voters will pull the lever.

The state of Florida has been one of the most contended states in presidential politics in the last decade, and with 27 Electoral votes, it holds the key to victory in any presidential election. Having been contended in 2000 (going to George W. Bush) and being the cause of the “hanging chad” debacle, this time around it was decided in favor of the Democratic candidate Barack Obama by a margin of 51%-48%. A small margin than most states, but carrying a much heavier population and overall turnout. For Obama, 4,143,957 votes and for McCain, 3,939,380, resulting in about a 205,000 vote victory. How did the Latino vote come into play in a state like Florida? According to NBC News exit polling, 14% of the electorate in Florida were Latinos (approximately just over 1 million of the roughly 8 million votes cast in the state.) This, however, yielded a smaller margin amongst Latinos, where Barack Obama won their support by a margin of 57%-42%. This translates into a little over 600,000 votes for Obama and around 400,000 for McCain. In other words, the 200,000 vote overall margin of victory was decided by the Latino population. Had every Latino remained home on election day and opted not to vote, the state would have been virtually tied, resulting in yet another Florida recount as seen in 2000. 

This is a fascinating fact, and should be greatly appreciated. One of the most populous states in our country, carrying one of the biggest prizes in electoral politics can be declared “a victory thanks to the Latino population.” Other states that had been reviewed had major influence by the Latino population and should not be overlooked. However, in the realm of presidential elections, this is a major feat. Both in 2000 and 2004, the election would have “gone the other way” (the loser actually winning) had only Florida been decided differently. Florida has a unique population, and even though it is in the Southern region of the United States, it is in no way a true “Southern” state. It consists of a transient population, where many retirees reside coming from all across the nation, an influx of younger people seeking the benefits of the cities of Miami and Orlando, and most of all, a heavy Latino population due to Cuban immigrants. When looking at what counties were carried heavily, most likely due to Cubans, we see Miami-Dade County being carried by Obama 58%42%, Broward County going to Obama 67%-32% and Palm Beach County going the same way by a margin of 62%-38%. These numbers are key to the victory on behalf of the Obama campaign, and it is obvious that the Latino population turned the state in his favor.

Obama faces internal party division

After grand support from fellow Democrats for the stimulus package, President Barack Obama now faces an uphill climb when looking down the road at his future legislative wish list.

While the stimulus package was passed with grand support from his own party, internal divisions are now poised to put a kink in the plans for health care reform, educational assistance, and a new energy policy. But how could such divisions be present after such a show of political strength less than one month ago? It is quite easy to see that many in Congress do not see these programs as being "dire," and do not associate them with the same sense of urgency as saving the economy.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said "When your house is on fire, you don't stop to think about which room to put out first. You call the fire department to put out the whole house at one. Otherwise, by the time you are done saving the living room, the rest of your house is in ashes."

This statement shows the true political/governing philosophy of the Obama administration. There is no "one solution" to fix the economy, and Obama sees many of these programs as being linked to economic and social prosperity. Some of his critics state that he is over-reaching, and has too much on his plate at once. However, laying out ambitious policy goals has never stopped a president from trying.

This will be a true test of whether the administration has power over their own party. One such example of the simmering internal division: "One proposal would overhaul the federal student loan program to guarantee yearly increases in the Pell Grant program. That idea enjoys broad Democratic support. But to pay for the Pell Grant expansion, Obama would end federal support for private lending. And one of the major corporate providers of student loans is NelNet, a company based in Lincoln, Neb., the home state of Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat who balked at the stimulus package and teamed up with three moderate Republicans to cut $100 billion from the final bill."

With pending troubles within his own party, and facing a tough uphill climb in respect to his legislative ambitions,

1. Can President Obama demand party support for these policies? Is such an action even possible (consider using the heavy hand of the presidency as leverage)?
2. Should Democratic leaders be ready to make concessions on these proposals and pass a bill that does half the job, or hold their ground until the first version garners enough support?
3. Is there anything that House or Senate leaders can do to protect their party from harsh internal divisions?
4. Will Democrats not in favor of supporting such action realize the bigger picture, or do the job of a delegate and protect their individual constituencies first?

Rove, Miers set to testify in prosecutor firings

After many attempts with little success, former aides to George W. Bush are finally set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee under closed deposition "under the penalty of perjury." The agreement to testify stems from a scandal during the former president's second term, in which allegations arose over whether or not Rove and Miers were influential in the firing of federal prosecutors.

The prosecutors were released by the Bush administration, but the prosecutors themselves claimed they were fired for not being politically loyal to the president. Some of these very prosecutors publicly testified before congress claiming that they were told they were not investigating Democratic activity (or allegations of Democrats committing fraud), and thus, were fired.

Much time has passed since the allegations first arose, and under the orders of George W. Bush, Rove and Miers refused to testify which led to the Judiciary Committee suing for their testimony. However, a deal has been reached, and they will testify behind closed doors before the committee with the possibility of having to testify publicly. "This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight," John Conyers (a Democrat from Michigan and the current Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) said in a statement. "It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

Now that they are set to testify (privately and possibly publicly):

1. What is to happen if they are found to have been involved in the firings, and the motivation was, indeed, political?
2. If found guilty, should they face serious consequences such as prison time, or simply a large censure?
3. If they are to have been involved, and there is no chance of jail/censure, does this all revert back to being a simple fact-finding mission?
4. Is this the first in a series of steps investigating actions of the former Bush administration? Should investigations also be held regarding other possible illegal/unethical actions?

The Questionable Role of the Minority Party in Congress

Focusing on the United States Congress, the role of the minority party in a democracy comes into question. As history has shown, a healthy democracy requires more than a single party, and must allow for an array of open debate to voice support or dissent for any given policy objective.
In recent years, we have witnessed a variety of roles played by the minority party in Congress, in both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives; the minority party has always taken the role of being the active voice of disagreement.

Explaining the seemingly unending calls for bipartisanship is not an easy feat, nor does anybody know for certain why there are calls for bipartisanship in a modern Congress when one (or both) chamber is dominated by a single party. Currently, the House of Representatives is overwhelmingly in control of the Democratic Party. Consider how the House is assembled; individual districts totaling 435 members of small constituencies, rather than the "at-large" representation in the United States Senate. When on such a micro level of representation, and with the results coming much in favor of one party, some may speculate that (without using the term "mandate") this results in the American people stating they prefer one party to another. In such a case, why the calls for bipartisanship? Simply stated: because it looks good politically.

Politicians, as we have come to know and love, live in a politically hostile environment, and have to survive the never-ending "permanent campaign." Some of those serving in Congress come from unstable districts where they are forced to make concessions and appease a given group of their constituents. It is not politically viable for most members, say in the House, to be ultra-partisan and run the gauntlet on the opposition. For as much as political junkies jump at the thought of partisan rancor, the general electorate is sickened by the thought of "partisan politics getting us nowhere." And of course, we cannot blame them for their sentiments.

So what is to come of the minority party currently in Congress? There is one simple answer: sit and wait. It was only a few years ago when Karl Rove and the Republican machine had vowed they had created a "permanent Republican majority," and were certain that their power in Washington was going to last for generations. Meanwhile, the Democrats were going through the same situation as the Republicans today. They were viewed as inferior when compared to the the majority party. But the Democrats played a brilliant (if it was actually planned this way) strategy: the "wait-and-see" tactic that eventually won them back Congress in 2006. The Democrats did not present a stronger or more popular message to the people (although, unlike the current minority, they did present alternatives). They did not get swept into office because they had a better platform, nor did the Republicans get voted out because the electorate viewed their opponents as being superior. The Democrats won because the political winds shifted in their favor, and sat by and watched as the Republicans imploded.

So why do Republican House members even show up to work every day without presenting any viable policy alternatives? Because they have no leadership. The minority party is in such disarray that their platform is lost, their leadership is absent, and months after the 2008 elections, have yet to voice any ideals that the electorate is willing to hear. The political atmosphere is not in their favor, and there is nothing they can do about it, until the majority party begins to slide.

In addition, the Democrats should call the Republicans' bluff in the United States Senate. Needing 60 votes to have passed the stimulus was not necessary. Having 60 is only needed to end debate. So, the Democrats should call their bluff, bring out the cots, and let the Republicans attempt to filibuster any legislation they oppose. The GOP has close to nothing to lose, and should have no problem with letting the American people witness their stalling attempts at blocking whatever legislation the Democrats propose.

We already witnessed that the GOP is not needed in the House. The stimulus passed without a single Republican supporting the measure, and the same will continue with legislation in the future. In the Senate, the Democrats have a majority, and should let the GOP attempt to filibuster. Why would they allow them to do this? Because it would be political suicide for the GOP to stall any measures that are aimed at economic recovery, and it would fare very well for the majority party.

The role of the minority party in any democracy should be to present viable policy alternatives, present enriched debate about the issues, and hold the majority party accountable for their (if any) misactions through whatever means necessary. Just as the Democrats did throughout their minority rule, they voiced dissent for the Iraq War, criticized the sitting President, and still presented real alternative solutions under the leadership of the DNC and its party leaders.

Overall, it is a rather unique situation as we see currently. Without strong leadership and a sound message to deliver, the minority party can easily be overlooked, and their requests ignored. It is time for the Democrats to turn up the heat, as the GOP did when they had the majority under Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert. In politics, what goes around comes back around.