President Obama, The 2013 State of the Union, and a Really Long Footnote 4

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 Barack Obama delivered his fifth[1] State of the Union address. The speech was policy-heavy, and Obama clearly hopes it will set the agenda for the next legislative session.[2] The New York Times offers a good summation of his policy points in a clear, easy to read format. I highly suggest spending five minutes to explore the run down of Obama’s domestic policy proposals (including gun control legislation, increasing minimum wage, path to citizenship and immigration reform, clean energy research, climate change legislation and education funding).

I found the speech particularly interesting. All of Obama’s proposals are linked on a fundamental level, and it has little to do with the standard Democratic platform (although the proposals do mirror many of the DNC’s policy desires). Instead, it has to do with Obama’s conception of the American Dream rooted in opportunity and the obligations of citizenship.

Opportunity and Citizenship

Speaking about his plan to invest specifically in areas that have experienced the worst of the economic repression, Obama highlights the importance of opportunity:

Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that’s why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.

Obama transitions from using the term “place” as geographic location (specific factory towns) to a metaphorical description of America. In doing so, Obama recognizes that in certain communities the dream of upwards mobility simply does not exist[3], and that the existence of these places is antithetical to the American Dream. Nowhere in America should upward mobility be out of reach for those who are willing to work for it. The opportunity to improve your life must exist.

This focus on opportunity brings together many of the themes Obama presents: direct investment in American infrastructure, jobs legislation, an increase in minimum wage (“no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty”), and even immigration legislation. If America is to remain a beacon of freedom and opportunity[4], it must have social and economic structures that allow for class mobility.

“Opportunity,” however, is often employed as a code-word for promoting free market principles through minimal taxation and pro-business legislation. This capitalist understanding of the American Dream is tempered by Obama’s second focus, obligation.

But as Americans, we all share the same proud title — we are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations, that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter of our American story.

For Obama, the responsibility individuals have to each other reduces the impact of free-market capitalism. Citizenship is further defined not by nationality or legal status, but by partaking in the shared American endeavor. This necessitates not just inhabiting a communal space but also recognizing a social responsibility towards fellow citizens. It is from this that Obama’s focus on gun control, climate change, and education originate.

In this way, opportunity and obligation resist each other. Obligation requires free markets to be truly fair, taxes to support education and development, and social programs to help those less fortunate. On the other hand, obligation without opportunity is rudderless. The promise of opportunity directs the energy of citizenship towards fruitful ends. Obama’s ideology is fascinating for the tensions it represents.

Opportunity, tempered with obligation, forms the foundation of Obama’s State of the Union. I find these that two particular themes reoccur throughout many of Obama’s works – both political speeches and his autobiographies. Understanding the premises underlying Obama’s ideology allows students of politics to make better sense of his legislative proposals.

---

[1] Obama’s February 24^th, 2009 Speech before a Joint Session of Congress is not technically considered a State of the Union address. Many consider it an annual address (occurring right after his inauguration), but still include it along side other SOTU’s. The difference is relatively unimportant. Check out The American Presidency Project here for more info.

[2] Current research suggests that the more attention the President gives to specific policy areas (foreign policy, economic issues and civil rights) the more the public level of concern over these issues grows. Just by focusing on specific issues, Presidents can increase public awareness and pressure Congress to act towards certain goals. See Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1995. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1). For those currently in Pols 1602, this is a perfect example of going public, the President’s ability to exert influence through rhetoric.

[3] Recent research suggests that upward mobility is exceptionally hard to achieve in America. Factories and towns such as the ones Obama is referring to may be far more common than we like to believe. Perhaps more important to note, is that opportunity for upward mobility is discriminatory along race (and gender) lines.

[4] This specific reference, that of America as a “beacon,” has a long enough history to warrant its own blog post. I’ll give a short description here, partially because its relevant and partially because tracing rhetorical and intellectual legacies is something I find fascinating. A reading of Dreams Of My Father and Audacity of Hope (Obama’s two published literary works) reveals that he employs “beacon” imagery derived specifically from Ronald Reagan. Reagan often referred to a similar vision of America as a “shining city upon a hill.” The shining city is a beacon for “all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” For Reagan, the beacon represents the opportunity of individual liberty. The “Shining city,” however, does not belong to Reagan. Instead, it was a carefully constructed image of President Kennedy as King Arthur, presiding over a perfect Camelot. Jackie Kennedy, who insisted on controlling her husband’s image after his death, used the phrase to ensure “that people will remember all the best things about him.” First appearing in a 1963 Life Magazine article titled “For President Kennedy: An Epilogue,” it idealized Kennedy as King Arthur, taken from the throne too soon: “Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.” The line is credited with “having played a major role in establishing and fixing this image of the Kennedy Administration and period in the popular mind” (JFK Presidential Library and Museum). To use the term is to invoke a long history which locates America as the “promised land” for all those seeking freedom and opportunity. Should we desire, the term is easily traced back to its American origins several hundred years earlier. Delivered as a sermon by John Winthrop in 1630 upon the ship Arabella, “A Model of Christian Charity” implores the Puritans coming to America to consider “that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill [sic].” The phrase is adapted from the New Testament, Matthew 5:14: “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” What is most remarkable is that the definition and use of such imagery has not changed significantly over the past 400 years. Indeed, the references from the New Testament do the same ideological work as Kennedy’s Camelot, Reagan’s “beacon” and Obama’s “light.”

Finally, the extended Footnote 4 is a coincidence, but happily references the most famous footnote of them all. Quotes in this footnote come from:

“The Family in Mourning,” Time, December 6^th, 1963. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898082,00.html. Accessed April 2009.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, “Theodore H. White (#307)”. Available:http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Archives+and+Manuscripts/fa_white_theodore.htm. Accessed April 2009.

Giles Gunn, Early American Writing (New York: Penguin Books, 1994), 112.

Ronald Reagan, “Farewell Address to the Nation” in Ronald Reagan, Speaking My Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 412.

Thoughts on the Newtown Massacre

Welcome to the 2013 Spring semester!

I haven’t posted in a while, due to conflicting feelings. I wanted to post about the horrific massacre that occurred in Newtown, CT, and I had so much to say. But that event hit very close to home, and I found any attempt to tackle it from a scholarly standpoint just came out feeling…inauthentic. My desire to remain reasonably objective on the issues I cover and to explore them from an academic standpoint just didn’t fit an event I felt so viscerally about. There’s no Daily Show clip either: there’s simply no comedy here.

It became difficult to compose a piece I was happy with, that addressed any of the multiple issues associated with the Newtown massacre. In the end, I found I had to keep it very general to say anything significant at all. In this way, a topic about which I have so much to say results in one of the shortest posts of the year.

- Teachers should not be placed in situations in which they have to be sacrificial heroes. When and if that happens, society has failed them.

- High powered, large magazine firearms in densely populated areas are unsafe and illogical.

- Placing well-trained resource officers in schools is certainly a good first step. But to simultaneously resist federal funds or tax increases to provide those services is disingenuous and hypocritical.

- Support for 2^nd Amendment rights does not always have to be unequivocal. Similarly, support for gun control legislation does not require banning gun ownership. Lets start with sensible firearm policy and a regulatory agency – a bolstered ATF – that has enough teeth to regulate. Appoint an ATF director. Allow the agency to do its job. Require background checks for all sales. Require inventory controls. These aren’t outrageous infringements on liberty. They are reasonable requirements to limit violence in society.

I do not own a gun, nor have I ever fired one. Every few years I’m scheduled to go to the range with a buddy or two and it never seems to work out. Students, when I inform them of this little fact, are often surprised. Even in Connecticut, this pacifism marks me as unusual; as if my non-interaction with firearms is somehow anathema to the American experience. In some ways, it is. American history cannot be divorced from the violence necessary to produce the cultural, geographical, and political structures we have today.

Unfortunately, we have a tendency to view American violence as the exception within a political structure that promotes peace both at home and abroad. It may be time to reassess how we address violence in America by understanding that what we perceive to be the exception is too often the rule.

Atheist, Agnostic and others – Oh My!

I am excited for the holidays. Good fun, great food, and an overall cheery spirit.

As we move into the secular/religious holiday season, I came across an article on NPR regarding an interesting voting bloc – the religiously unaffiliated.

Who are the “religiously unaffiliated?” They are not necessarily atheist or agnostic, although it certainly includes these two categories of non-belief (see here for a good description of the difference). Nor do they disdain spiritual life: 68% of this group believe in God, over half express a spiritual connection with nature, and more than a third identify as “spiritual” but not “religious.” Furthermore, one fifth (21%) report praying every day. These statistics paint a picture of a non-religious, yet spiritual group.

The “religiously unaffiliated” refers to those people who self-identify as belonging to no organized religion. Within this group, 88% are not looking for a religion, 10% are looking, and 2% report being spiritually confused. In sum, although this group captures a small amount of people who desire a religion but haven’t found one yet, those who are content without organized religion overwhelmingly dominate the group.

The religiously unaffiliated are an interesting voting bloc because: 1) they are growing as a percentage of the total population, and 2) they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

According to the Fox News exit polls, the more often you attended religious services the more likely you were to vote Romney. Conversely, the less religiously inclined voted Obama. Among those who do not attend religious services, Obama won over 60% of the vote. According to the Washington Post exit polls, Obama won 70% (!) of the religiously unaffiliated vote. While Romney won a high percentage of those who attend religious services more than once a week (the highest category on the survey), the population of people who attend – ahem – religiously, is smaller than those who do not attend services at all. And the second group, the unaffiliated, is growing.

The unaffiliated now make up almost 20% of the total population, up from 15% only 5 years ago. This is a group that is growing fast. Equally important, the largest group of unaffiliated people are young: 32% of 18-29 year olds, and 21% of 30-49 year olds are unaffiliated. As the younger generation becomes the older generation, the ranks of the religiously affiliated (as a percentage of the total population) are going to swell.

Religiously unaffiliated make up almost 25% of all registered Democrats. They overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage and legal abortion procedures. According to the Pew Forum report (from which most data in this post derives), in 2008 “they voted as heavily for Barack Obama as white evangelical Protestants did for John McCain.” The religiously unaffiliated vote, vote in large numbers, and vote predominantly democratic.

I find the increasing importance of the religiously unaffiliated interesting for two reasons. First, understanding the wishes of the unaffiliated allows us to view contemporary politics through a secularized (although still spiritual) lens. This means that specific religious justifications for policy will alienate a growing segment of the population. The following passage, taken from the introduction of Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman’s Divided By God explains this point well:

“The deep divide in American life then, is not primarily over religious belief or affiliation – it is over the role that belief should play in the business of politics and government. Consider same-sex marriage…Many Americans insist that marriage is ‘between one man and one woman’ but say they have no objection to civil unions that give gay couples the same rights as married people. If there is no legal difference between civil union and marriage, why object to the word ‘marriage?’ What’s in a name? The obvious answer is that even though marriage is a state institution, it has a traditional religious definition, which opponents of same-sex marriage do not want to change. The reason so many people oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ is that they believe the state’s sanction of marriage should take account of a moral value derived from religion”

The use of “tradition” and the debate between civil union and same-sex marriage is ultimately informed by religion. These types of justification for civil matters may weaken as the religiously unaffiliated voting bloc grows.

Second, I find the electoral importance of the religiously unaffiliated really fascinating. What would a candidate who pandered to an unaffiliated voting bloc look or sound like? It’s almost unimaginable in today’s political landscape. Nonetheless, recent trends suggest we take seriously the viewpoint from the non-religious.

Just some points to think about.

O’Doyle Rules…(Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff)

The Fiscal Cliff: What is it and why does it matter?

So, it appears even the writers of the Daily Show have been in a post-election haze. While we wait for some truly juicy domestic politics issues to arise, let’s talk about the fiscal cliff.

Let’s make sure we’re on the same page. The fiscal cliff refers to a bundle of effects (tax increases, spending cuts, budgetary requirements) that will automatically occur if the Budget Control Act of 2011 isn’t altered by Congress before January 2^nd, 2013.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was a non-solution solution to the Debt Crises of 2011. Democrats and Republicans were unable to come to an agreement regarding the national budget. As a result, they kicked the can down the road by not dealing with it – with one important caveat. They selected specific outcomes each party was vehemently against – for Democrats, this included cuts to financial aid and spending reductions, and for Republicans this equated to tax increases and reduced military funding – and held these outcomes hostage. If no better agreement was reached (with a minimum level of spending cuts) before January 2^nd, 2013, the full package of spending cuts and tax increases automatically occurs. In theory, this provides incentive for Democrats and Republicans to work together towards compromise.

The November election complicated matters further. Although President Obama was reelected, Republicans maintained control of the House (although they lost a handful of seats). As a result, each side seems to believe they are in a superior bargaining position – with both Obama and House Republicans claiming support from the people.

Thus, almost every article written about budget negotiations reads exactly like all the others: Obama puts forth a budget based on campaign promises, which includes increased taxes for the individuals in the top tax bracket. Republicans counter that this is identical to the budgets they have rejected in the past, and urge further cuts to entitlement programs as well as a reformation of the tax structure. Deadlock resumes.

As we enter the holiday season, there is reason to be optimistic about a happy new year. One interesting development has been the abandonment by some Republicans of Grover Norquist’s “no new taxes” pledge – a hard-line stance that hampered negotiations. Similarly, Jacob Lew, President Obama’s budget director, has publicly expressed a need to reform entitlement programs to make them more solvent, a suggestion that has previously angered some Democrats. Perhaps compromise is possible after all. See here and here.

A few talking points should help you muddle through the ridiculous rhetoric that is sure to follow in the next three weeks:

First, there is no clear relationship between lower taxes and economic growth, job growth, or increased investment. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between lower tax rates and a higher concentration of wealth among the top tax brackets. Just so we’re clear: lower taxes do not actually create more jobs. Nor do they increase tax revenue. At least not that we can prove (and hey, we encourage facts here).

Second, the deficit/debt problems in this country are simply too large to be solved by either spending cuts or tax increases. To the extent that this blog has an overriding theme, that theme would be compromise and discussion. To suggest we can solve the problem with no reformation of either the spending or revenue streams in this country is to ignore reality. What we should be arguing over is the ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. It seems like we’re moving in that direction.

Finally, we need to understand that the effects of going “over the cliff” are exceedingly complex. There’s even some debate as to whether the event, despite it’s scary name, is even a bad thing. For example, see here and here.

The primary worry is that the economic measures contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will increase the chances for an additional (or extended) recession, although it might improve the long term prospects for the economy. See here for more information.

Wanna see something funny? As someone who was (and still is) relatively new to the Christmas season, this was our 2009 Christmas tree. Small apartment, Large Tree:

Thanksgiving!

Hello All!

Happy Thanksgiving!! Enjoy your time off! I haven’t updated in a while, mostly due to the post-election coma I’ve found myself in after the overdose of information from the past few months.

I’ve been reading a lot of post-election coverage, and something I’ve found interesting is the evisceration by some on the Right of Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The point in focus is Christie’s response to President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy. You can view that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsEXWpv7MM

In essence, Christie praised Obama for his disaster response in the week prior to the election. This allowed Obama, as a former Romney staffer put it, to be a President and not a politician. It is perceived that Christie’s favorable view of Romney may have helped convert swing voters right before the election.

The condemnation is interesting. As I discussed in class, Chris Christie may be exactly the type of Republican that can win a national campaign. He’s (somewhat) a moderate. He comes from a Democratic state. He was once held in high enough esteem by the Republican party to be thought of as a possible presidential candidate. After his handling of storm Sandy, his popularity in New Jersey jumped to almost 70%.

I was reminded of this rejection of moderation earlier today. I came across a piece regarding the Obama campaign. Apparently, the Republican primary candidate the Obama campaign was most worried about facing was Jon Huntsman. Why? Because Huntsman was the single most moderate candidate (relative to existing coalitions) in the primaries, including President Obama.

What this means is that President Obama is roughly as liberal as Mitt Romney is conservative when measured against their party. Obama is more liberal than 36% of Democratic House members and 64% of Democratic Senators. Romney is more conservative than 38% of House Republicans, and about 53% of Senate Republicans.

These scores don’t perfectly translate into objective terms, because the parties are moving further and further apart from each other on an ideological scale. What we do know, is that Jon Huntsman, who received so little of the primary vote that he barely registered on national polls, was the most moderate of all the candidates. This was precisely his problem. Moderation meant he was far more liberal than his Republican base. He was more liberal than all but 1% of House Republicans and 6% of Senate Republicans. For reasons we’ll explore post Thanksgiving in class, his moderation was his downfall in the primary campaign.

As the country drifts slowly to the right, it’s worth noting that Presidential candidates don’t have to be moderate to win. But since both Republican and Democratic candidates are moving right, it means Democratic presidents are moving closer to the ideological center while Republican candidates move closer to the extreme.

This leaves us in an interesting position. President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since World War II. Conversely, President George W. Bush was the most conservative president in the same time frame.

In terms of advocating for policy, Nate Silver suggests:

“Nevertheless, there is some support for the notion that Democratic presidents take positions that — while still quite liberal — are at least somewhat more amenable to compromise. By contrast, Republican presidents push as hard as they can to the right and let the chips fall where they may.”

Which brings us in a roundabout way back to Governor Christie and Jon Huntsman. For showing moderation both were ostracized by their party, despite representing competitive middle grounds.

Finally, the full vote-counts are in from all the states. President Obama was reelected with 332 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote. Mitt Romney received 206 EV and 48% of the popular vote.

Just food for thought. A little bit of rambling on Turkey day.

;

Data for Liberal/Conservative measurements relies on DW-Nominate scores, found here, here, here, and here.

;

Scooby Doo and The 2012 Presidential Election

I finally got around to watching The Daily Show from the past two evenings (election night and post-election night). Stewart focused, rightly I think, on the Republican reaction to Obama’s victory, and primarily on the response from Karl Rove and other political pundits. Although Stewart hits on several good points, I don’t think he clarifies the underlying points in the Republican response. Here’s where I come in:

Stewart contrasts the unwillingness to believe in modern polling analyses well by having Nate Silver on as the guest. But a resistance to purely quantitative analysis is not a Republican feature. Several Democrats believed the race to be far closer than it was as well. This is not what I want to cover.

What particularly bothers me about the Republican response highlighted by Jon Stewart is the inability to recognize that people who voted for Barack Obama did so for legitimate reasons. Instead, their vote reasons are assumed away by various derogatory generalizations: people who voted for Obama are selfish or lazy or dumb; they don’t want to work or lack individual responsibility; or perhaps they were tricked by a massively successful propaganda campaign. Either way, the reasons behind their votes are somehow….fraudulent, or un-American.

At no point is there a moment of true self-realization: that people who voted for Obama did so because they thought he was the better candidate, or because the Democratic platform addressed their needs better, or because they preferred his vision of America over Mr. Romney’s – all the same reasons that Romney voters chose him over Obama.

I was always taught that if I tried but failed, I should take a deep breath and reassess my actions. What was I doing wrong? How can I fix it? This belief – a focus on individual responsibility that aligns almost perfectly with the Republican ethos – does not include blaming fellow Americans or deriding their choices. Nor does it include an attack on science or the media, or a search for who to blame. Individual responsibility, as I understand, means critically assessing your own actions first. This should be a moment of reflection that creates a more electorally viable Republican party – not an entrenchment of the belief that the party did everything right, but the system was somehow against them. Instead of politics, it sounds more like an old Scooby Doo ending, where the villain whips of the mask and boldly declares: “I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids.”

Post Election Wrap-Up

Alrighty then!

President Obama has won reelection, and will be President for 4 more years. Let’s take a moment and reflect on something particularly important – despite criticisms of the political system, errors in voting machines, or disagreements over the role of the Electoral College – the process of peaceful competition for power is sound, and the democratic processes on which this country stands remain sound.

As more votes come in (particularly from New Jersey, which extended voting due to the storm, and Florida, which is close enough to merit some additional counting) we’ll get a more accurate picture. In the coming weeks, polling data will allow us to really dig into demographic and issue changes. For now, here’s what we know:

Obama received 303 electoral college votes, to Romney’s 206. 29 votes (Florida) are still undecided. The final results should be either 332 to 206 (should Florida go for Obama) or 303 to 235 (should it go for Romney). It is currently projected to go blue. The popular vote also favors Obama.

The first note I took from the results is that Nate Silver (over at 538) and the people over at the Princeton Election Consortium predicted the results with stunning accuracy. I trusted this would happen. So did you. But unfortunately, many political pundits dismissed the reliability of advanced statistical modeling. Trust the math people. Trust it.

The second point I want to highlight is that early exit polling suggests Obama won the election despite earning a smaller share of the white male vote than he did in 2008. Obama won only 39% of the White vote this time around, compared to 43% in 2008. He made up for this loss with a larger share or turnout (early results aren’t clear yet) of the minority vote – specifically Hispanics. Early results show that Hispanics and Asians each broke over 70% in favor of Obama. The demographic projections suggest these groups are only increasing in size. This leaves us with a single, unavoidable point: future elections cannot be won through reliance on the white vote. In addition, Obama carried only 56% of self identified moderates (as compared with 60% in 2008). While Republicans can keep control of the House for sometime, the party will need to address the broader needs of an inclusive republic (such as immigration reform) and draw far more moderates/Independents away from Democrats if it wants to take the White House with any consistency.

Third, exit polls and voting results suggest Romney gained in almost every category. Romney increased the Republican share of the male vote, female vote, the white vote, the black vote, almost all age groups, among all education levels, and among almost all income levels and party identifications. The New York Times map detailing the shift from 2008 has most of the country becoming more conservative. This is really fascinating. If Republicans gained on almost all fronts and the country as a whole moved to the right, and they still lost, then what does that mean? For me, it’s indicative of a poorly run campaign, a horrible primary season, and the inability to deal with internal party factions (such as the Tea Party and Libertarian movements).

Fourth, despite all this, Republicans kept solid control of the House. They have now controlled 7 of the past 9 Congress’, dating all the way back to the mid 90’s. As a result of the mixed results, it’s hard to think the American people mandated either Obama or the Republicans to continue any given platform.

Fifth, Democrats retained control of the Senate. Every concession speech I watched yesterday (and even many acceptance speeches) mentions the importance of working together for bipartisan solutions. A recent lecture by Professor Sarah Binder at the University of Connecticut paints a far bleaker picture: deadlock in Congress will continue and partisanship is on the rise. While partisanship can often be a positive attribute (forcing moderate compromise), complete lack of working together is antithetical to a functioning government. Let’s hope everyone – Republicans and Democrats alike – wake the hell up.

Sixth, same sex marriage resolutions passed in Maine, Maryland and Washington, bringing the total number of states which allow same sex marriage to 9 + the District of Columbia (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, plus D.C.). In addition, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational (not only medicinal) marijuana. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out, considering the drug is still illegal at the national level.

Seventh (boy, this list just seems to keep going…), a quick shout out to the Libertarians. Their candidate, Gary Johnson pulled in over one million votes nationally, breaking a thirty year old record for Libertarian candidates. He needed to hit 5% to receive federal matching of funds in the next election, so he was still pretty far below the threshold necessary for a viable third party.

Finally, I’ll end with a bit from Obama’s acceptance speech:

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

Exit Polling/Voting statistics from the NYT and Google Analytics:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president and

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Edit (11/8/2012): Someone pointed me in the direction of the awesome compilation of NateSilverFacts on Twitter. They’re kind of like Chuck Norris Facts, but nerdier: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23natesilverfacts&src=typd

VOTE!

VOTE!!

 

Of Polls and Presidents

Nate Silver, ETDSBlog’s favorite statistician, was last night’s guest on The Daily Show. Tomorrow’s guest is President Barack Obama. It’s like Christmas morning…

One of the major themes in this class (and of this blog) has been to cultivate those skills required for true discourse and meaningful political debate.  While this blog has long held the bias of major news organizations, the response from Fox News that Jon Stewart highlights is troublesome. As a recap, here’s how Chris Matthews, the prominent MSNBC host, responded to Obama’s first debate performance:

Matthews criticizes Obama for a lackluster performance. In the longer clip, he highlights what Romney did well. Much of the focus was on Obama’s performance, and rightfully so. Compare that response with the one Stewart highlights above. Fox commentators blamed the questions, the moderator, the venue, Obama, and the time for each candidate. Some of these are definitely legitimate concerns, while others are not. The point, however, is it reflects a more fundamental inability to criticize their own candidate. I have stressed this so many times, and I’ll take the time do so once more: discourse, as opposed to yelling, assumes that you have the capability to perceive the good in another’s position and the faults in your own.

Okay, onto the polling! ETDSBlog holds a lot of respect for what Nate Silver does. FiveThirtyEight provides a really well done instant snapshot of national sentiment. Polls, however, are not the end-all or be-all of American politics. Nor should they be.  As much as I employ polls as an entry point into electoral discussions, let’s take a minute to discuss the pros and cons of a constant polling cycle. In order to understand polls, we first have to understand when and why they are important to government.

There are two generally understand models of representation: the trustee model and the delegate model. These are ways to describe and understand how citizens expect their elected officials to act. The trustee model of representation assumes that citizens elect representatives and assume those representatives will exercise their own judgment, even if it occasionally goes against what their constituency wants. So, as a citizen you elect a representative and entrust them to make good decisions about government. The trustee model assumes that representatives will ignore their constituency when their constituency proposes really terrible ideas. The elected official does not directly represent the people, but acts as a policy-filter for their ideas by encouraging and passing along good ones to Congress and keeping the bad ones out of government. This requires the representative to use their own judgment.

The second model is the delegate model of representation. The delegate model assumes citizens elect “delegates” who should represent their constituents regardless of their personal beliefs. The elected representative is nothing more than the people’s voice in Congress.

How does this relate to polling? Under a trustee model of representation, public opinion is a tool but not necessary. Since the representative can (and should) engage his or her own judgment, information about what the electorate actually wants is not always necessary. Under a delegate model of representation, public opinion information (polling) is vital. Only when the delegate understands the policy-positions of the people is he or she able to pass those desires onto Congress.

So, depending on whether you think representatives should be just that – representative – or whether they should instead filter good ideas from bad will help determine if you find polls useful. Most of us are not candidates, and the Trustee/Delegate model breaks down a little at the presidential level.

Polling at the presidential level has several detrimental effects. First, polls can help determine elections, particularly presidential primaries, by creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Polls give instant updates as to who’s “winning” and who’s “losing.” If polls indicate a candidate has a shot of winning, they have a higher likelihood of raising money, which in turn gives him or her a better chance of winning. Poor polling results can often result in a smaller bankroll.

Second, presidents (or other elected officials) who favor using polls may consult them prior to enacting policy. President Clinton infamously employed constant polling in determining future policy decisions and language. If elected officials focus on policy decisions that are popular, it may be more difficult to solve the really tough problems facing America.

The third point is highlighted really well by Stewart and Silver. Polls provide so much information about individual voters that candidates will “micro-target” the electorate. This means that candidates use this information to go after the very small percentage of independent voters in swing states. Despite the rhetoric you may hear in the media, research indicates that the percentage of voters who are still undecided and live in a swing state (and will thus decide the election for the rest of us) is between 3 and 5 percent of the voting population. That’s it. Candidates are spending money to find out what that sliver of people want, and then catering to them. As a result, candidates focus less and less on your vote or your issues.

Finally, polls can (and often are) abused. In a famous example occurring during the 2000 Republican primary between George W. Bush and John McCain, voters in South Carolina we’re asked: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” The language of the incredibly offensive question infers that McCain fathered an illegitimate child – a completely unfounded assertion. Nonetheless, it plants the seed of doubt in the voter. In addition, polls are often inaccurate for a variety of reasons.

Polls allow citizens to register a variety of opinions with their elected representatives, while simultaneously allowing candidates to tailor their campaign to public opinion. Coming back to the Trustee and Delegate models of representation, it remains unclear whether unrestricted public opinion influencing government is a positive characteristic of the American republic.

Presidential Debate #2 – October 16th, 2012

Come at me bro

 

I’ll have some more specific thoughts on the debates later – it appears that although I got up early and posted a more lengthy response, it didn’t upload or save . As a blogger, I’m still getting the hang of this.

It was a really entertaining debate. The New York Times headlined with: “Rivals Bring Bare Fists to Rematch,” and thats a pretty good summary. Both candidates were firing directly at each other. Obama clearly won on both style and substance, but time will tell if it the polls will bounce accordingly. I’ll be keeping an eye on Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight.

I will conclude with this: When 2 presidential candidates look each other in the eyes, and declare the other a liar, who is the public to believe? Whoever won this debate, the public lost.