Washminster

Washminster
Washminster
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Shutdown


I should have slept last night, instead (albeit with my eyes closed), I listened to the radio feed of C-SPAN on my iPad. The speeches in the Senate and the House of Representatives were broadcast as the clocks moved towards midnight in Washington. Then at 5am, I heard Louise Slaughter state that the time had come - and the government was now shutting down. After months of argument - the new financial year had begun, and Congress had failed to provide money for it. Congress has proved that it has become a non-functioning body.

How has it come to this?

The roots go back many years. I am not a believer in a mythical "Golden Age" - when politicians were impeccably civil towards each other; when decisions were reached by consensus, without the intrusion of party politics. Politics has always been hard fought. Even the most well mannered gentlemen knew how to push and shove, and play hardball when necessary. Reading Congressional and Parliamentary history is a great antidote to the rose-tinted view of earlier days.

But something has gone badly wrong. We are getting used to seeing political "suicide-bombing". A small group of dedicated ideologues holding a country hostage - and threatening to - (and last night in Congress, actually) - inflicting harm on fellow citizens. There are public servants who will not get paid. They will cut back on their spending threatening others' livelihoods. Holiday makers (sorry Sis, your trip to New York to visit the Statute of Liberty today will be thwarted - as will be your planned visits to the Gettysburg Battlefield Visitor Center and the historic buildings of Philadelphia on the rest of your holiday) - will be disappointed - and foreign visitors like my Sister won't be transferring money earned in Britain into the US economy.

In the UK we have the Eurosceptic fanatics - I don't mean those who have their concerns about the direction and policies of the EU (I respect that and will happily engage in dialogue with them) - I mean the fanatics who are prepared to invent any story to discredit Europe; who are determined to have Britain out "of Europe", whatever the cost in jobs and British influence.

How has this suicidal tendency got itself into our legislatures? I think its worth remembering the words of President Kennedy at his inauguration -

"So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
 

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us."

It has been forgotten. "No surrender" is the battle cry of the Congressional warriors - but let's remember that that slogan lay behind, and continued for years, the conflict in Northern Ireland. Politicians have got elected on a promise to "take on Washington"; they've portrayed deliberation and negotiation as weakness or selling out. Cross-party working has been shunned.

Partisanship has increased. There are many academic explanations of it - and I would thoroughly recommend Sean Theriault's excellent "Party Polarization in Congress". We need to go beyond this - we need to start working on making politics function properly again.

That doesn't mean cozy stitch-ups; or an unrealistic denial of the very real differences in opinions about how to solve our common problems - it does mean a greater emphasis on deliberation; on honourable negotiation - a rejection of the view that 'compromise' is weak.

It means that politicians should stop listening to un-elected gurus who urge slash and burn tactics - Malcolm Tucker is a fictional character - Lynton Crosby; Damian McBride; Dick Morris; and their ilk are not. Voters should tell the parties that they will punish them if their behaviour continues to deteriorate.

 

Monday, 9 January 2012

Thought Provoking

I've returned from an excellent conference held in Manchester by the American Politics Group. If you are a teacher of American politics or a postgrad researching the area (and it is not confined to just one approach - members represent those who rely heavily on statistical analysis [whilst I do some, I wouldn't count myself among their number]; those whose emphasis is on historical studies; Congressional and Presidential scholars; and lawyers doing comparative studies) - it is worth joining. Details are available on the APG website.

It was a real feast (and I'm not only referring to the dinner in the Midland Hotel on Thursday night and the informal meal at a Chinese restaurant on Friday).

The first panel looked at Health Care. Alex Waddan (Leicester University) presented a paper on "Health Care and the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act". It considered the background to the passage of the Act and its significance. Carmina Serrano of Complutense University of Madrid then gave a very interesting paper on the use of anti-trust law in reforming healthcare in the United States. It highlighted the exemptions which had allowed a number of anti-competitive practices to thrive within the pharmaceutical industry in the US..

Our second session was on the Tea Party. Michael Bailey of Georgetown University presented a paper giving a very detailed statistical analysis of the impact of four different activities associated with the Tea Party. He looked at the impact of Tea Party activists; the level of Tea Party support within districts; Group endorsement activity and the activities of people within the political elite (Congress and Party leaderships) who identified themselves as "Tea Partiers". The impact of the four upon electoral outcomes and rollcall votes was considered. Clodagh Harrington of De Montfort University gave a very interesting paper on the Tea Party movement(s) - looking at the background; the sources of the anger and the differing agenda. I had read the paper prior to the conference and was prompted to buy an ebook of essays by Richard Hofstadter, including his famous 1964 essay on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". I read them over the weekend. Many thanks to Clodagh for prompting this - and I will be writing a post specifically on those essays within the next few days.

The third session looked at some of the history behind the development of the Right. Alf Tomas Tonnessen looked at the significance of events in 1978. His will be a paper I will be using as a starting point for further research. Tom Packer, who has just submitted his Ph.D. thesis at Oxford University gave a fascinating presentation the Jesse Helms. Luca Trenta (Durham University) gave an excellent paper about Risk versus Risk trade off in Foreign Policy. It was very strong on theory, then went on to apply it to the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

The final panel on Friday included a paper by Onawa Lacewell and Annika Werner (WZB, Berlin) which considered the impact of state party autonomy on Electoral success in the 2008 and 2010 elections - which highlighted the contrasting nature of presidential and mid term elections. They are continuing their research and have already drawn out some important conclusions. Marco Morini (Padua) then looked at the impact of the economy on presidential approval ratings.

John Berg of Suffolk University (Massachusetts) considered the Tea Party; the union protests which began in Madison, Wisconsin and the Occupy movement. A very useful background to each was given and he drew out the potential electoral implications of each. A very interesting paper! Eddie Ashbee of Copenhagen Business School also provided some thought provoking material in his paper "The Obama Presidency, the Left and Narratives of Failure".

The Final session of the conference looked at an important "institution" - the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) - and how it had developed. It was a great historical study - and Andy Rudalevige has found some real gems amongst the memos and documents produced within the Office and the Executive Office of the President. Christine Harlen of Leeds University spoke about her research into the Small Business Innovation Research Programme - and how it developed despite some strong opposition (and some surprising Congressional alliances).

A great start to the year for me - and the conference has stimulated a lot of thought. The papers are not available online - but many are due for publication in the coming months. Some will be contained in a forthcoming book which John Dumbrell of Durham University is editing, and others are early drafts of papers which will appear in the academic press. I will be passing on details when they are published.

[I used the photo of Starbucks, 1-5 Oxford Road, Manchester because - after the conference had finished - I spent a couple of hours there reading my newly downloaded ebook of Richard Hofstadter's essays]

Friday, 10 September 2010

Angry MPs

Rosie Winterton made the following remarks in the Commons yesterday -

With regard to the allocation of time for the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, can the Leader of the House tell us whether he thinks there will be adequate time to put right the abject failure of the Deputy Prime Minister to explain why public inquiries into parliamentary constituency changes are to be abolished? It was fairly clear on Monday that the Deputy Prime Minister has employed the services of the Tory grandee, "Sir Gerry Mander", as his special adviser, but surely even he must realise that removing the right of local people to have a say in constituency boundaries is not only wrong in principle, but will also lead to endless expensive judicial reviews in the courts.


We now have clear advice from the Clerk of the House that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is similarly ill thought-out and will also end up being challenged in the courts. Those two Bills are prime examples of the betrayal of the promise of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government to have pre-legislative scrutiny wherever possible. Worse than that, they are in the first case anti-democratic and in the second case unworkable. The only thing the Leader of the House should do is withdraw those Bills, go back to the drawing board and come back with legislation that respects our democracy and respects Parliament. I urge him to do so.

On another matter - Tom Watson spoke of  "the tawdry secret" see the clip posted on Washminster yesterday.

Are MPs getting angrier? I it synthetic or are there real issues at stake? Now that the tea party organisers have crossed the Atlantic to advise on tactics, and public sector unions are gearing up to fight the coming cuts - are we about to set politics becoming angrier in Britain?

Your comments please - either via this page or to info@washminster.com