US Elections

4. Despite the lessons of recent history, Romney would double down on the disastrous tax policies that handed windfalls to the wealthy, but stacked the deck against the middle class. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. To the surprise of no one, Romney also opposes the Buffett Rule. He would allow millionaires to continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals that often allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it — replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn’t cover out of their own limited budgets.

Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters. It’s on us to speak the truth.

So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook. Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.

When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is “moderate,” you need to know what to say.

You are the President’s voice out there, and I can’t stress enough how you will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not. The more Americans learn about Mitt Romney, the less they like him, and the less they trust him.

I think this is a pretty telling indication of where the Obama campaign sees the 2012 fight. The fact the gender gap appears so prominently reinforces the idea that a lot of this campaign will be about women’s issues — and thank goodness for that, because usually they’re not even mentioned. I’m still not entirely convinced that the whole contraception debate wasn’t an incredibly clever ploy on the Obama administration’s behalf to bait Republicans. It’s cynical, sure, but also damn smart.

I’m also wondering if maybe the Obama campaign thinks Paul Ryan is going to be the VP — or that he’s a likely choice and they’re getting in a preemptive strike. Points 2, 4 and 5 link pretty closely to the Ryan budget.

Also, I think it’s great that Obama is running on Obamacare. It’s good that it’s stopped being the electoral poison it was in 2010. It’s about time they said “dammit, this is a good thing, and we’re going to stop defending it and start celebrating it.”

Hide

• The run is definitely over for Bachmann, probably over for Perry, and possibly over for Gingrich.
  Iowa might not tell us who did win, but it’s good at telling us who definitely won’t. Candidates who built a campaign for an Iowa-friendly demographic and haven’t done well will likely get out of the race. Plus, New Hampshire is expensive and, without a strong showing in Iowa, these campaigns are likely to struggle to raise cash.
• Ron Paul can’t win, but won’t quit.
  He’ll stay in it a while, but he can’t win the nomination without winning Iowa. Really, given his antagonistic relationship with the Republican powerbrokers, he was never going to win it anyway, but any chance he had went when he fell 3 796 votes short of the winner.
• Santorum will get lots of media attention.
  The “Santorum surge” is the story of the week, not Romney’s winning it. The media need a story to tell, and “Romney’s nomination is all but certain” isn’t going to sell much advertising, so the conflict will be played up over the week. At the same time, Santorum will get the same media vetting that Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry all endured.
• Romney will get lots of money.
  Strategic donors are smart. They see the was the nomination contest is going, and start to donate to Romney. And as Romney gets more money, his ultimate success narrative will built, and the whole thing will become a self-reinforcing snowball which will barrel its way to Super Tuesday, when Romney will lock up the nomination.
• People should have listened to me earlier this week when I recommended bets on Romney at $1.30 to get the nomination.
  He’s now paying $1.07.

Hide

Political philosophy plays a far more obvious role in American politics than it does in Australia, yet as Australian observers, it’s easy to focus on policy itself, rather than the philosophical debates that underlie it. Often, the issue for many Republicans isn’t whether something like health care is a good thing, but whether it should be the responsibility of the federal (rather than state) government. The boundaries of government, what government exists to do and what it does not, and which government ought to be responsible for things is a far more central and important part of the American political conversation.

By representing the debate as being about whether something is good, rather than whether or not the US federal government should be the ones doing it, much of the important nuance in the debate is lost.

3) They assume that foreign policy is important to voters

While as non-Americans, its easy to get caught up in foreign policy issues, the truth is that elections aren’t usually won or lost on the power of foreign policy. The economy matters more. Cultural issues matter more. A small subset of Americans vote on foreign policy, but most don’t. in 2012, it will be the economy that matters most.

4) They overestimate the power of the Presidency

Oh, this is a big one. It’s amazing how often Australians talk about the President as though they operate as the Prime Minister. The role is very different. Separation of powers — which we talk about in the Australian system but don’t really experience in the same way — is key. Congress makes the law; the President does not. Saying “the President will do this” or “Obama should have done that” displays a very naive understanding of what the Presidency actually can and can’t do.

I don’t want to get all primary-source on you, but it’s worth looking at the Constitution at this point. Here are the powers of the Presidency:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Compare that to the powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress is far more powerful, and the President far less, than many understand.

5) They think Evangelical Christians are very influential

Yes, they’re there. Yes, they vote. Yes, they vote in large numbers. But if you want to look at voting blocks that really influence elections, the age and wealth of voters is far more significant. Conservative Christians do not rule the United States with an iron fist, and there are plenty of people in both parties who identify as Christian yet don’t support traditional “culture war” issues.

6) They assume it’s a story of good guys vs. bad guys

This is more of a summary of many of the points above, but given the Democrats’ pretty significant popularity in Australia, often there’s a tendency to treat Republicans as the bad guys. In reality, their policy positions are far more varied and nuanced than once might assume, and the vocal, tea party type is just one of many kinds of Republicans. Portraying all Republicans as hard-right, super conservative Evangelicals is lazy, and it doesn’t at all serve to help us understand the US more comprehensively. It does, however, feed into anti-American stereotypes which abound.

7) They think the US would be better off with a Parliamentary system

People often talk about the problems in the US Political system as though they are fundamental- it’s either the existence of a powerful extreme conservatism or the lack of a parliamentary system that causes most of the problems. They’re not. The separation of powers, the incredible diversity of US political parties and the centrality and importance of individual rights is part of what has made the US the great modern democracy. Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it needs some tweaking. But these are not fundamental problems.

Rather, there are some pretty significant structural issues that have caused a lot of the US’s current political problems. You could significantly reform the US system not through huge, fundamental system change, but a couple of minor adjustments:

• National popular vote for the President. Get rid of the electoral college
• Change the Senate representation rule to reduce the massive disparity. Introduce a tiered system where the largest states get 6 Senators, the mid-sized states get 4 and the small states get 2. That way, you preserve the state-based nature of the Senate, but understand the interests of a citizen of Montana should not be weighted at 66x those of a citizen of California.
• Get rid of the filibuster. Allow the Senate to pass legislation by a simple majority. The supermajority plus the current Senate representation method means that Senators representing just over 14% of the population can prevent something from passing. That’s hardly what the framers of the Constitution could have had in mind. Yes, that tyranny of the majority is a real and important thing to consider, but that’s what the Bill of Rights is for.
• Eliminate anonymous holds on nominations. They’re just undemocratic.

This post was originally published at ErinRiley.com.au. 

Hide

President Barack Obama was supposed to be in Australia just last weekend, visiting the Prime Minister and speaking to a joint session of Parliament.  The Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico postponed the trip for the second time.  In March, the President postponed his planned trip because of health care reform.  It was rescheduled for last weekend.  Given Rudd's dwindling popularity in June, a trip would most likely have been the salve he needed.

President Obama is still incredibly popular in Australia.  There can be little doubt that a visit from him would have boosted Kevin Rudd's poll numbers, however minorly, and stemmed the tide of the leadership challenge.  While a leadership challenge mere days after showing off Australia's wonders to the leader of the free world would have been unthinkable, one days after a snub was both realistic and almost to be expected. And so Julia Gillard challenged Kevin Rudd for the Federal Labor leadership. And won.  If Obama had visited last weekend, such a challenge was unfathomable.

However indirectly, the Oil Spill claimed its first world leader today.  Kevin Rudd could no longer be Prime Minister of Australia.  If BP's oil spill hadn't have happened, I sincerely doubt that Kevin Rudd could have lost the leadership.  Barack Obama canceling his trip had far greater consequences than anyone could imagine.

Hide

The very night of that ceremony, which was the 14^th of April, they held a banquet of a sort in a building that had a roof on it, back in Charleston, and that was the very night, of course, that Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater in Washington. But the black folks of Charleston had planned one more ceremony. That ceremony was a burial ceremony. It turns out that during the last months of the war the Confederate Army turned the planter's horse track, a racecourse--it was called the Washington Racecourse--into an open air cemetery--excuse me, prison. And in that open air prison, in the infield of the horse track--about 260-odd Union soldiers had died of disease and exposure--and they were buried in unmarked graves in a mass gravesite out behind the grandstand of the racetrack. And by the way, there was no more important and symbolic site in low country planter/slaveholding life then their racetrack.

Well, the black folks at Charleston got organized, they knew about all this. They went to the site. They re-interred all the graves, the men. They couldn't mark them with names, they didn't have any names. Then they made them proper graves and they built a fence all the way around this cemetery, about 100 yards long and fity, sixty yards deep, and they whitewashed the fence and over an archway they painted the inscription "Martyrs of the Racecourse." And then on May 1^st 1865 they held a parade of 10,000 people, on the racetrack, led by 3000 black children carrying armloads of roses and singing John Brown's Body, followed then by black women, then by black men--it was regimented this way--then by contingents of Union infantry. Everybody marched all the way around the racetrack; as many as could fit got into the gravesite. Five black preachers read from scripture. A children's choir sang the national anthem, America the Beautiful, and several spirituals, and then they broke from that and went back into the infield of the racetrack and did essentially what you and I do on Memorial Day, they ran races, they listened to sixteen speeches, by one count, and the troops marched back and forth and they held picnics. This was the first Memorial Day.

Transcript available here.

It's easy to forget Memorial Day originated in the Civil War.  The way that war was remembered is both fascinating, and an interesting insight into American culture and history.  Blight's book, Race and Reunion, looks at the way the Civil War was remembered during the first 50 years after it was fought.  

November this year marks 150 years since Lincoln's election.  December marks 150 years since South Carolina seceded. In the coming five years, as the 150th anniversaries of battles and moments of the war are remembered, the battle for the way its remembered will no doubt resurface. 

Happy Memorial Day, everyone!

Hide

Every year, I spend the little bit of time to register to participate in the lottery.  There are a few other visa options available to me, but none would put me on a path toward citizenship.  Plus, they're all linked to a specific job.  Convincing an American employer to take a chance on an Australian they've never met is hard enough in a good economic climate- at the moment, it's near impossible.  So even though there's only 50,000 spots, and millions of applicants, I throw my name in the ring every year.

But this is what the visa lottery really is: it's a chance- truly, just a chance- for people to immigrate to the United States, and to be put on a path toward citizenship.  Even as a native English-speaker with a Masters degree in US Studies, it's still my best chance to get a greencard. 

Immigration to the United States is very difficult, and I don't think many of those speaking out against immigration reform realise just how hard it is for someone to legally enter the United States for any significant period of time.  

Hide

Here are seven reasons I think this will be the case:

1.     The economy is recovering.

Every month, things get a little bit better.  Jobs are created.   TARP worked.  There’s been a little bit of spin around this fact, but expect Democrats to step it up as November gets closer.  “The Republicans caused the problem. We solved it.” will be a powerful narrative.

2.     The deficit isn’t as bad as expected

Not much has been made of this yet, but the deficit isn’t actually as big as it was projected to be, and not by an insignificant margin.  The economy is recovering, tax revenues are higher than expected, and banks are paying back the bailout ahead of schedulure. Again, expect the Dems to start making noise about this fact.

3.  The Gulf of Mexico oil spill isn’t so good for Republicans

Yes, yes, I know Obama endorsed offshore drilling in the State of the Union, but “Drill, Baby, Drill”  is far more engrained in the collective memory.  Images of the gulf coast, of dead turtles, of oil-covered birds, and the cost of the clean up, will be contrasted against Republicans singing the praises of offshore drilling.  Clean energy takes on a whole new meaning, and the Dems are certainly the party of clean energy.

4.  Several positive parts of the health care bill will kick in soon

A family with kids in their early -20s will soon be able to add them back on to their health insurance plan.  Patients with pre-existing conditions will shortly have new options with the health insurance exchanges due to launch in the Summer.  Kids with pre-existing conditions will be covered . Lifetime coverage limits will be lifted.  Insurance rescission will be banned.  And all these things will happen with time to spare before November- and all of these improvements can be wholly owned by Democrats.

5.  Immigration Reform will mobilize voters

There's a bit of back-and-forth about which party would really be helped my immigration reform, but my suspicion is that it will be advantageous to the Democrats.  After reading far too many anti-immigration letters during my time in DC, it certainly seems to me that many of those who are likely to vote based on their anti-immigration views are both already very mobilized and unlikely to ever vote Democrats.  The voters who are more likely to be newly mobilized by immigration reform would be more likely to vote Democrat.  Of course, this is only a gut feeling, but I'd be surprised if the results didn't show this to be the case... 

6. The Tea Party movement is nominating candidates that are unpalatable in a general election

The Tea Party movement has had only moderate success in the primaries thus far, but as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, they don’t need to win to push candidates to the right. Consequently, there's a strong chance that candidates who have stronger right-wing views will be the Republican nominees across the country in November.  These views may not be as palatable to the independent voter as the mean Republican's was, say, six years ago.

7.  The Democrats, and Obama’s team in particular, are good at organizing

Organizing for America is just about to step up its effort for the 2010 campaign.  They are incredibly good at using data to target voters.  Their recently-announced plan to target the 3 million first-time voters from 2008 could prove an incredibly effective strategy.  Beyond that, though, their use of technologies to support organising is just exceptional.  With six months of lead time, they could very easily devise a very successful strategy to change the demographics of the mid-term voters.  

Expect to see them very strategically using the significant accomplishments of the 111th Congress to highlight the fact that Democrats do good things for the country, but expect to see them do it when it matters.  Elections are a marathon.  Remember, McCain took the lead in early September 2008, but the Obama campaign ran when it mattered and conserved energy when it didn't.

The fact is, it’s only May.  There is a LOT of time between now and November.  1994 looms large in the Democrats’ imagination, but there’s every reason to have hope.  The Obama campaign was nothing if not savvy in elections, and it shouldn’t be expected that they’d waste time now, in May, when there’s still six months until the election.  As long as they pick the right narratives- and there are plenty there for the picking- and get their incredibly organizing apparatus moving again, there are plenty of reasons to think November won’t be anywhere near as disastrous as many fear.

Hide

I mean, I get that you assume your audience knows nothing about American politics, but would it have hurt you to set it up with a bit of background (it's not like the audience would have gone anywhere!!). That way you could have asked the President for actual insight, rather than just answers you could have got from wikipedia.

And you know what? There is SO MUCH MORE to US Foreign policy than Iraq and Afghanistan, and the questions about Iraq and Afghanistan have been asked a thousand times.  What about focusing on the US's role in the Pacific region- NO, not just China, the Pacific- since we are actively involved in that?  What about asking about the role of the G20, since we're not involved?  Why not ask questions about the continuing nature of US-Australian relations?  

You have a genuinely once-in-a-lifetime experience, to sit down with the sitting President of the United States, and that is really the best you can come up with?

I, for one, would have asked him about the United States' position on Mandatory Internet Filtering.  I know, I know, it's my question, but still, it's easily the biggest story in Australian-US relations in the last month or so, so why not ask about that.

In trying to produce an epic, sweeping interview, you've instead produced one that says absolutely nothing new, Kerry.  It was not impressive.

Oh, and one more thing.  At the end, you said "Barack Obama, Thank You."  It's PRESIDENT Barack Obama, thank you. To not use his title was exceptionally disrespectful.

So, anyone have any BETTER questions O'Brien could have asked President Obama?

Hide