jdm_progressive

Warning - this won't be for everyone.

While Washminster is intended, BBC style, to be politically neutral (though I make no secret of the experience which lies behind this blog) - I have set up a website for those who consider themselves to be 'progressives'.

jdm_progressive was launched yesterday - and if you think it might be your 'cup of tea'  - please try it out at http://www.jdmprogressive.com/

It includes information about the UK Labour Party, the US Democrats and the French Parti Socialiste - and has links to my jdm_progressive twitter feed and a dedicated YouTube channel. I value feedback - so please let me know what you think.

The Dumbing Down of Politics

Thomas E Mann is an academic specialising in the US Congress, whose work I have great respect for. Of particular note (but there is so much more that he has done) is the joint writing he has done with Norm Ornstein - The Permanent Campaign and its Future (2000); The Broken Branch (2006); It's Even Worse than it Looks (2012).

In a recent Brookings Post he wrote - and it is worth reading!

Donald Trump and the Amen chorus of Republican presidential aspirants may have appeared to monopolize the capacity to make fantastical claims about what’s wrong with America and how to fix it. But a rival has appeared on the scene, outlining a very different fantasy plan to run for president on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig looks meek—a dead ringer for Mr. Peepers—yet is anything but. Lessig built an impressive career in legal scholarship on the regulation of cyberspace, and the mild-mannered, soft-spoken academic became a cult hero among libertarians fearful of increasing legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and the electromagnetic spectrum. But Lessig’s transformation into a political activist was spurred by his personal revelation that money in politics is the root of all our governing problems. Eliminate the dependence of elected officials on private donors and the formidable obstacles to constructive policymaking will crumble. Simple but searing truth, or a caricature of a complex governing system shaped by institutions, ideas/ideologies, and interests?

Lessig became a whirlwind of energy and organization to promote his new values and beliefs, leading efforts to “Change Congress,” convene a second constitutional convention, raise awareness of corruption in politics through the “New Hampshire Rebellion,” and start the “Mayday PAC,” a super PAC designed to end all super PACs. He wrote the bestselling book Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and A Plan to Stop It, delivered a series of popular TED talks, and tirelessly traveled the country with his PowerPoint.

With none of these enterprises yet bearing fruit, Lessig has decided to raise the stakes. He has announced that if he receives $1 million from small donors by September, he will seek the Democratic presidential nomination, running as a “referendum candidate.” His single-issue platform, built around the concept of “Citizen Equality,” consists of “true” campaign finance reform supplemented by electoral reform (to weaken the influence of gerrymandering) and voting rights. His goal is to use the election to build a mandate for political reform that will cure our democratic ills. Lessig will apparently have nothing to say about anything other than political reform, insisting that his issue should be and can be the number one priority of voters in the 2016 elections. If nominated and elected, President Lessig will serve in office only long enough to enact the Citizen Equality Act and then resign, turning over the powers and responsibilities of the office to the vice president. Recently he generously informed the Vice President that he would happily enable a third Joe Biden term by selecting him as his running mate.

The hubris of the Harvard Professor is breathtaking. In virtually every respect, his strategy is absurd. Lessig’s political reform agenda is stymied by Republicans, not Democrats. Why not direct his energies where the opposition resides? All of the current Democratic presidential candidates support the thrust of these reforms. But saying that this is their highest priority is likely to harm, not boost, their candidacies. Why would even the most ardent supporter of the three pillars of Lessig’s reform agenda cast a ballot solely on this basis? Big and important issues divide the two parties today and the stakes of public action or inaction are huge. We don’t have the luxury of using the election to try to build a mandate for a set of political reforms that would have no chance of passing in the face of GOP opposition and would be of only incremental utility if they did.

Campaign finance does play a corrosive role in our democracy and I have invested much of my career grappling with it. There is no doubt that money in elections facilitates the transfer of economic inequality into political inequality, and the spectacle of several hundred plutocrats dominating the finance of our elections should be a target of serious reform efforts in the courts and the Congress. At the same time it is foolish to imagine that campaign finance is the only route for private wealth to influence public policy or that its reform will dramatically transform the policy process. Money did not prevent the major legislative enactments of 2009-2010—including the stimulus, student loans, the Affordable Care Act, and financial services reform. Nor is it likely to be the critical factor on climate change, immigration, infrastructure or jobs and wages; which party wins the White House and whether control with Congress is unified or divided is key. If anything, the Lessig campaign is likely to weaken the forces for political reform by demonstrating just how small the relative priority for this action is.

Trump offers the country his outsider status, success in building his personal wealth, an outsized personality, a brashness in asserting how easily he can solve the country’s problems, and a hearty appetite for and skill in stoking the anger and fears of a segment of the country. He feeds the notion that a strong, fearless, wily leader, inexperienced and mostly uninformed in politics and governing, can be the man on a white horse saving a great country losing its exceptional status. His claim that all politicians are bought by private interests—a claim Lessig eagerly embraces—fits well with his grandiose claims that he alone can fix what ails the country. A significant segment of Republican voters, presumably not well versed in the American constitutional system are attracted to him, at least enough for him to be a factor in this election campaign.

Lessig is a far less commanding presence but his ambition burns no less than that of Trump. The notoriety, celebrity, and adoring audiences are heady stuff, even if on a much smaller scale. Lessig told Bloomberg that Trump’s candidacy is evidence that his reform message is taking hold. Lessig said, Trump “strikes people as credible when he says all these people (politicians) are bought—I used to buy them …Trump is saying the truth.” Lessig will be a minor figure in this election and the causes for which he fights are unlikely to advance from it. Both Lessig and Trump, despite their differences in visibility and importance in the election, will have contributed to the dumbing down of American politics, a reality that will bring tears to the eyes of civics teachers and political science professors across the country.

It is well worth signing up for Brookings newsletters - which can be done here.

Final Day of Conference (Belated)

It's been a very busy few hours (well 50 hours +) since the APG conference finished.

The first session was a panel on "The Discipline of Politics in America: Origins, Problems and Prospects" - an excellent title, since we covered history of the discipline of political science (and associated disciplines), philosophy and thoughts on where the subject may develop in the future. Louisa Hotson traced the development of various lines of thought, with an emphasis on Chicago - and took us through hopes and disappointment. Nathan Pinkonski discussed Leo Strauss. Stephen Welch looked at the positivist basis of American political science.

The final session included John Berg on the politics of coal - tracing the various reasons why this subject has been so important in American politics (as it has been in British). Ron Mendel discussed the Occupy Movements of 2012, while the final paper by Richard Johnson, of the University of Oxford - "Deracialisation: Re-examination of a political strategy" was of such quality that he was awarded the postgraduate prize for best paper.

It was an act of genius for the founders of the APG annual conferences to arrange them for the first days of the new year. This was my fourth conference - and each has set the new year off to an excellent start. They have been interesting and thought provoking. As an added bonus - the APG involves a really nice group of people. Fun and stimulating!

Welcome to Washminster

Understanding Today's Republicans

As some members of Congress seem ready to play Russian Roulette with the US Economy and Reputation - what motivates today's GOP? This article appeared in a blog published by two of the Democrat's leading strategists - "The Democracy Corps"

"The Republican Party is descending into unchartered realms of unpopularity with the country, even as its deepening divisions leave it immobilized in the face of doomsday budget deadlines.[1] If you want to know why Speaker Boehner has appealed to Democrats for help, you need go no further than the three ascendant blocs of Evangelicals, Tea Party supporters, and moderates that we described in our first Republican Party Project report last month.[2]

But you will understand the current war in the Republican Party better if you are able to see the the six underlying attitudinal dimensions that run through the consciousness of today's Republican Party supporters. It is these dimensions that create the passionate factions at war against ‘Obamacare,” gay marriage, and immigration.     
We uncovered these underlying dimensions using a multivariate factor analysis that took the inter-correlation of each question with every other question to identify factors that organize Republican voter consciousness on a range of issues, from politics to values to emotions.[3]  We used big data analysis to identify six underlying dimensions that, in effect, map the Republican brain.      
These are the six dimensions running through the attitudes of Republican identifiers:  

1.      The Obama-Pelosi-Democratic Congress-government activism dimension (explains 23.5 percent of responses).  This is the predominant, and the most motivating dimension of Republican thinking, explaining almost a quarter of the variation in responses to the world. This dimension is animated in the first instance by deep hostility to President Barack Obama, and equally by views of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress that held sway before the voter reaction in 2010.  These partisan responses are on the same dimension with a fierce hostility to federal government action, particularly with respect to climate change, though also health care reform.  While Republicans are desperate to stop health care reform, climate change has become as much a defining factor in Republican thinking.     

More than any other dimension, it gains its strength from deep hostility to the president and the Leader and health care reform.  Over 80 percent of Republicans offer cool reactions to them -- and three-quarters give them the coldest reactions possible, with Pelosi more reviled than the Obama.  This is the emotional and combustible dimension in the Republican identity.

2.      The homosexuality-traditional values dimension (8.2 percent). There is a second, very strong dimension that centers on homosexuality and traditional values.  Gay marriage and homosexuality set off the responses that form this dimension.  Importantly for Republicans, homosexuality has become more important than abortion in motivating the focus on preserving traditional values.  Two-thirds respond coolly to gay marriage, but almost all of them, 60 percent, are intensely negative.  This dimension and the centrality of homosexuality mean that social and cultural issues will be key drivers among Republicans and in the country.

3.      The Republican Congress dimension (6.6 percent).  Excited Republican reaction to the new Republican Congress after the 2010 elections constitutes another organizing dimension in their identity.  Unlike the country, Republican voters feel very warm and embrace the Republican Congress and the Speaker, including warm feelings about the Tea Party and pro-life groups.  

4.      The traditional pro-business dimension (5.2 percent).  There is a pro-business dimension in Republican thinking -- hostility to unions, pro-immigration and pro-free trade.  This was surely a more powerful factor in the past and it is barely more important than the anti-Wall Street dimension among Republicans.  This dimension gives energy to a traditional business agenda: marginalizing unions, facilitating labor market needs and promoting America's global businesses.  That agenda would not have much of an impact among Republican primary voters.   

5.      The anti-Wall Street dimension (5.0 percent).  Equal in explanatory power is an anti-Wall Street dimension that includes the leader of the Republicans in the House who voted against the TARP bailout, we should recall.  It also encompasses positive views of government action on climate change, suggesting openness to a regulatory response when it comes to Wall Street. 

6.      The anti-foreign-anti-immigration dimension (4.6 percent). The last dimension is an anti-foreign and anti-immigrant dimension, led strongly by opposition to free trade abroad but also by doubts that immigrants make a good contribution to the country.  This is more nativist than economic, as it is strongly associated with rejecting “the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves." This dimension reinforces a view that Americans ought to get on with the work of the country. 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] In the last month, the Republican Party has reached new levels of unpopularity, as reflected in the recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey.  An amazing 44 percent of the country view Republicans negatively, up 3 points this past month when we might have expected gains because of Syria.  The Democrats have a brand advantage of 12 points (40 percent versus 28 percent on feeling positive).  (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey of 1000 adults nationwide, conducted Sept. 5-8, 2013 by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies).

[2] The survey of 950 2012 voters (1500 unweighted) nationwide was conducted from July 10-15, 2013.  The survey included an oversample of an extra 350 Republicans to allow for more detailed subgroup analysis.

[3] Our findings stem from a principle-components factor analysis conducted using responses from 607 self-identified Republicans to batteries of 13 feeling thermometer questions and 14 agree/disagree questions measuring policy-related attitudes. Such an analysis is typically used to find distinct patterns across a series of survey questions that reflect common underlying traits or attitudes. These patterns identify dimensions of opinion which are distinct from one another, with each dimension providing a different angle from which to assess the differences in attitudes across the Republican Party. The six dimensions identified in this memo correspond to the six most prominent factors identified by the analysis, which combine to account for 53% of the total variance across all responses.  These analyses are the product of a collaboration between Democracy Corps, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and Pivotal Targeting, LLC.

- See more at: http://www.democracycorps.com/Republican-Party-Project/mapping-the-republican-brain/#sthash.Eiw8me9t.dpuf

Revision for Exams?

Do you have exams coming up in the next few weeks? Washminster may have resources to help your revision.

There are posts specifically on revision
Revision video
Mind Maps
Other resources on Washminster
[These were written some time ago - the principles remain the same - but some comments are quaintly 'out of date']

The search engine can also be useful to find material on specific topics. So there's lots on

LAW
English Legal System (courts; legal personnel; statutory interpretation; precedent...)
UK Constitutional Law (separation of powers; rule of law; parliamentary sovereignty...)
EU Law (Institutions)

POLITICS
British Politics
US Politics
European Politics
French Politics

Have a go - the search engine is on the right, below "Share It". Let me know what you find useful - and anything else (within my area of knowledge!!!) that would be of use.

Send your comments to comments@washminster.com

Coming Soon....

Washminster will return on Saturday 1st September. Initially I am aiming for a post, on average, every other day - but this will increase shortly. Please do pass the message on about the return of this blog.

In particular this blog should be of interest to those

* who are studying Law and Politics - particularly of the US and the UK
* who enjoy British history
* who enjoy US history
* who are interested in French and EU Government, politics and history
* who enjoying thinking about the practical application of political ideas
* who take an interest in UK, US & French election

so if any of those describe YOU - please subscribe to Washminster. If they describe any of your friends or students - drop them an email - or post about Washminster on Facebook or Twitter.

Many thanks

David

Watergate - Let us never forget

From the time the story was developing (I was a schoolboy at the time), I have been fascinated by Watergate. I might even go as far to say that it developed my life long interest in both US Politics – and the issue of how to control the abuse of power. [I am a lecturer in Constitutional Law – and I always stress (some might say ‘bore for England’) the importance of the first part of Lord Acton’s dictum that “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely” – and the consequent need for scrutiny of the use of power].

Over the years I have collected a number of books and other resources about the break in and the subsequent events. If you look at my Facebook profile – (jdavidmorgan) you’ll see that I list “All the President’s Men” as one of my favourite films – I watch that as often as some people watch “The Sound of Music”. If you haven’t watched it – I thoroughly recommend that you do so. Guess what I’m planning to do on Sunday? I have the autobiographies of Richard Nixon, Chuck Colson, G Gordon Liddy, Mark Felt (‘Deep Throat’), H R Haldeman’s “The Ends of Power”; and a copy of the Ervin Committee Report (and of course Woodward and Bernstein’s two books – ‘All the President’s Men’ and ‘The Final Days’). I have the Frost interviews as well as the more recent book and film about them, and many books about Nixon.

It can be too easy in a mature democracy to forget how far people are prepared to go to acquire and hold on to power. Too often we can concentrate on describing political events and procedures; discuss policies and personalities – but we should never forget the importance of scrutinising and controlling the use of power.

National Constitution Center

Details of the Center are available at http://constitutioncenter.org/. I spent a couple of hours there during my, all too short daytrip to Philadelphia. I hope to revisit (many times) in the future. There are excellent exhibits which tell the history of the US - and the central role of the Constitution. Whether you want to learn about the Constitution; how the American system of government works; or about US history - there is something for you. For me the highlights were the initial dramatic presentation by an actor setting the scene - the life size models of the signers of the Constitution; and the gavel used in the House hearings on Watergate.

There is a Research Center on site. Further details available here.

Goodbye to 2008 - and welcome 2009!

Election Expenditure

The final figures are not yet available - but it is estimated that almost $2 billion (that's a B!) was spent by candidates in the 2008 Presidential election. A blog on the New York Times website recently stated "the debate over how future campaigns will be financed is set to begin in earnest. The outcome promises to have a profound impact on future presidential runs, either upping the fund-raising ante irrevocably or forcing sweeping changes to prevent such large amounts of cash from coursing through campaigns again. But just as it has in this election cycle, it is quite likely that politics, as much as principle, will shape the jockeying."

Campaign Finance reform has had a chequered history in the USA - the main stumbling bloc has been the constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech Rights (First Amendment)

A Congressional Research Service paper on the issue is available at http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL33580.pdf

The Brookings Institute has a webpage on the issue - http://www.brookings.edu/topics/campaign-finance.aspx and a campaign site (one amongst many) can be accessed at http://www.publicampaign.org/

In the UK, the amounts of money are much smaller - but the issue is still of great concern. There are now legal limits on how much individual candidates can spend; and on the national expenditure of parties. A paper prepared by the House of Commons Library can be read at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03413.pdf.

Congress to Campus

Yesterday I attended a meeting at Leicester University which was addressed by two former Congressmen, George Hochbrueckner (NY, 1987-95, Democratic Party) and Dick Schulze (PA, 1975-93, Republican Party). It was a very interesting session - and the congressmen spoke about the work of Congress and the political situation in the US after last week's elections. Students and Staff had an opportunity to put questions - and a lively debate ensued about healthcare.

The "Congress to Campus" programme was by created by the Association of Former Members of Congress. Former members visit universities in pairs - one Democrat and one Republican, to explain and discuss Congress with students. The programme began in the USA, but has been extended overseas. In the United Kingdom the programme has been supported by the British Library.

More details of the programme can be found at http://www.stennis.gov/congress2campus.htm

American Football - and the lessons for Politics

During the last few days of the US election campaign, Brian Moran, the Minority Caucus Chairman in the Virginia House of Delegates - and the son of a football coach - drew out lessons from American Football for those involved in political campaigning.

Back in the UK

After a short break - during which I flew home via Amsterdam and Birmingham - Washminster returns. Yesterday was the much anticipated by-election (special election) in Glenrothes. Much to everyone's surprise Labour held the seat comfortably.

News stories on the result can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7710999.stm and http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/07/glenrothes-byelection-labour-snp1

This morning's Independent points out that Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, was the inspiration for 'Josh Lyman' in West Wing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-chooses-rahmbo-as-chief-of-staff-998194.html

I also found this blog entry (The Park Bench) about Emanuel - http://theparkbencher.blogspot.com/2007/05/artistry-of-rahm-emanuel.html

My favourite quote of the day came from an Independent story about the tensions between McCain's aides and Sarah Palin - "They badly need scapegoats for everything that went wrong and Ms Palin comes to their minds faster than a moth to light."

Results - by the Precinct

Television coverage of the results will focus on the State level - who will win the electoral votes for the Presidency; Senate and District (House of Representatives) races and so on. But if you want the detailed figures - at the precinct (uk equivalent - "ward" or "parish") level the results will be posted by the appropriate election board.

Fairfax County, VA: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/returns.htm

Alameda County, CA: http://www.acgov.org/rov/current_election/index.htm

Multnomah County, OR: http://mcelections.org/2008-11/results.shtml

Travis County, TX: http://www.co.travis.tx.us/county_clerk/election/20081104/results.asp

Sample Ballots

So what does the ballot look like? Below are sample ballots from a number of places in the USA (I selected these because of my own connections)

Alexandria, VA: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/elections/info/2008NovFullUnofficialSample(1).pdf

Fairfax County, VA ( VA 11 district): http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/OS_Sample%20Ballot%20Style3.pdf

Northampton, MA: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cityclerk/uploads/listWidget/6771/Specimen%20Ballot-November%204,%202008.pdf

Rugby, ND: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/gen08/vpweb.pdf (pages 13-16)

Precinct Captains

Key players across the USA tomorrow will be the precinct captains. Tania Blagrove, the Alexandria Democratic precinct captain for the 108-George Washington precinct explained their role

The Week Ahead

It's election week - yes the Glenrothes by-election is on Thursday (for more information on the constitutency; candidates and the recent history see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenrothes_by-election,_2008). Can the Labour Party hold this once safe seat?

Of course it's also - finally - Election Day in the USA. The final push is now on - so it will be a busy weekend for political activists around the country.

In Parliament, both Houses work on as normal. The calendar is available at http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/2008/11/03/week.html. On Tuesday the order which will bring the local and European elections together on the same day will be considered by the Lords.

Voter Registration

In the United States the rules for voter registration vary by state. In many areas it is now too late to register to vote in this year's November elections. Information on voter registration can be found on the websites of a State's Board of Elections (or equivalent).

An example of an american voter registration form can be viewed at http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/emplibrary/VirginiaVoterRegistrationApplication.pdf

The onus is on the individual voter to register - there is no legal obligation to do so - and a major part of the work of party campaigners and others this year has been to persuade people to register. When I was in Maryland during the 2006 election I visited a university campus and there were a number of voter registration stalls set up for students to register, including one by the main bus stop.

In the United Kingdom a form is sent to each household once a year, and this form must be completed and returned (failure to do so can lead to a fine - though I've never heard of this happening). Councils should make every effort to chase up unreturned forms and actively seek to promote registration. However, particularly in areas where there are high turnovers of population - full registration is never achieved.

A website allows British citizens to register: http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/registering_to_vote.aspx

A Summer's Viewing

It hasn't been a good summer in Britain - at least as far as the weather has been concerned. Grey and wet conditions have dominated. Yet I've had an enjoyable summer. Over the summer recess I've been engaged in a massive "WestWingathon" - starting in July when Parliament rose and ending yesterday afternoon. I completed it just in time - Parliament returns tomorrow! I started with the pilot episode (Premiere) - and finished with episode 22 (Tomorrow) of Season Seven.

West Wing was an extraordinary series. It was great drama - with some superb humour. Most of all it was thought provoking - dealing with real issues, which politicians in Washington were (and are) dealing with in real life. It used, and often explained, practice and procedure within both the Executive Branch and Congress. As an educator I'd love to teach a course on the American Political System, based entirely on episodes of West Wing!

Much has been made of the series telling the story of the 2008 election, a couple of years before the event. This week in Westminster, Ron Silver - who played Bruno Gianelli, (campaign manager to Bartlett, then adviser to Arnold Vinick - a character loosely based on Dick Morris) - and who is a political player and commentator in his own right - will be addressing a meeting of the Henry Jackson Society http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/ . His talk is entitled - "Life Imitating Art: Will the 'West Wing election' mirror reality or can we expect a surprise result?". I very much hope to attend!