This article is about spending on Marine One helicopters for the White House. Original plans have increased from about 6 billion to about 11 billion dollars. McCain and Obama both agree that ideas like this (that can be good ones) have literally cost taxpayers a ton of money.
Obama admits in the article that the helicopter he has is just fine, although he really has no real basis for comparison since he’s never owned a helicopter. It’s good to see politicians from each party agree that this type of spending is unnecessary, and should be limited.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
2008 Elections-Candidates or Parties?
The candidates in the 2008 presidential elections did not seem like agents of their parties. It proved difficult for the Republicans to even nominate a candidate. Every major possibility (McCain, Huckabee, and Romney) each had their own group within the party that disapproved of their candidacy. So no matter who was nominated, there would be some group not satisfied. My point here is that it seems difficult for a candidate to be an agent of the party when the entire party doesn’t even support his/her candidacy. And on the Democratic side, I turn to the issue of fundraising, especially in Obama’s case. He was very successful at raising money, in large part because of smaller donations from many individuals. Here it seems he did a lot of his own work, not the party.
Advances in technology and communication have only shifted the balance between candidate and party-centered campaigns. In this past election, things seemed to be quite candidate-centered. Thanks to the internet, each candidate has the ability to create a website where voters can visit and learn more about the campaign. These websites are candidate-centered with only some reference to the parties. (For example, on Obama’s home page, there is a link to the DNC web page, but otherwise, little mentioning of the party is done on the main page.) Everything on the website has his name all over it, Obama this and Obama that… the “Obama Store” etc.
The Obama website seems to be following the advice of the Teachout article. She mentions how a website, all in one central place, can list contact information and give directions for citizens to local events. On Obama’s home page, there is a map of the United States in the top right corner with the heading, “Get Involved Now, Find an Event Near You.” This is clearly what Teachout is talking about in her article. Getting people out to local events is a key part of a candidate’s web-site. Teachout also mentions blogs and how Howard Dean used his “Blog for America” as a tool for reaching his supporters. This blog contained everything from news stories to struggles in campaigning for the presidency. Obama also keeps a blog on his website to inform his supporters of recent developments in the Obama administration. (I’m certain while campaigning though it was all about the campaign rather than the administration.)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
After Stimulus Battle, Liberals Press Obama
Now that Obama’s economic stimulus bill has passed the House and Senate and been signed into law, something still remains in Washington. Democrats within the legislature are hoping that as Obama moves into other areas of policy, such as health care and energy, that he will be able to firmly stand his ground with the Republicans. And not leave the vote up to a few centrist senators. While most Democrats are happy that the stimulus bill passed, they are saddened that the bill was cut back. They feel the original bill would have done a better job at firming up our economy’s foundation. They hope that in the future Obama will take a more active role in drafting legislation.
Election Reform- Primaries and Campaign Finance
The introduction of primary elections to nominate candidates to public office yielded some fairly important unintended consequences. In general, primary elections have reduced the influence of the party organizations when it comes to nominating candidates. First off, the primaries are conducted according to state law, which gives less power to the party organization. The political party has relatively little say about how things work. Secondly, the purpose of introducing the primary system was to give more power to rank-and-file members of the party, rather than party leaders. Because of this, the party cannot reward supporters by nominating them for office. And because rank-and-file members pick the nominee, it is possible that unpopular members of the party, most likely those hostile towards party leaders, will get nominated.
Campaign finance reform is another area in which partisanship can be affected. I think it’s important to note here that the Republicans seriously opposed any major changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Mainly this is because Republicans notoriously were known for surpassing the Democrats in campaign funding. But, nonetheless, these reforms have banned the parties from raising and spending soft money on behalf of the candidates. They are only allowed to use hard money, contributed by Political Action Committees and individuals. This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate.
Efforts for reforming elections, introducing primaries and regulating campaign finance, have both been used to eliminate factions from American elections. While I agree with the attempt to “equal the playing field”, especially regarding campaign finance, I’m forced to believe that all factions cannot be removed from the American election process. There will always be someone or some group that can find loopholes in the legislation and use those to benefit their own interests. That being said, if it were possible to eliminate all factions from American elections, I don’t think we would want to. It would be a lot of work and involve a ton of oversight over the parties and their candidates. I don’t think it would be possible to regulate everything in the American election system. There’s just simply too much. And on top of that, there’s no guarantee that it would all work.
Campaign finance reform is another area in which partisanship can be affected. I think it’s important to note here that the Republicans seriously opposed any major changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Mainly this is because Republicans notoriously were known for surpassing the Democrats in campaign funding. But, nonetheless, these reforms have banned the parties from raising and spending soft money on behalf of the candidates. They are only allowed to use hard money, contributed by Political Action Committees and individuals. This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate.
Efforts for reforming elections, introducing primaries and regulating campaign finance, have both been used to eliminate factions from American elections. While I agree with the attempt to “equal the playing field”, especially regarding campaign finance, I’m forced to believe that all factions cannot be removed from the American election process. There will always be someone or some group that can find loopholes in the legislation and use those to benefit their own interests. That being said, if it were possible to eliminate all factions from American elections, I don’t think we would want to. It would be a lot of work and involve a ton of oversight over the parties and their candidates. I don’t think it would be possible to regulate everything in the American election system. There’s just simply too much. And on top of that, there’s no guarantee that it would all work.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Maine Senators Break With Republican Party on Stimulus
My previous post was concerned with decentralization and how it can impede effective partisan action. The current debate in the Senate over the president’s stimulus package is no exception. In this article we see two republican senators who have broken from the Republican Party and voted yes for the bill. They may be voting against other senators in their own party, but when asked why, they reply that they are doing what the people of Maine elected them to do.
Decentralized Politics
The American political system, because of its structure, tends to decentralize political power and has a significant effect on political parties. It is Federalism, or the dividing of power between the national government and individual state governments, that makes it harder for political parties to do their jobs. Not only is there the American government, but also 50 additional state governments. And in each state then, 50 different democratic or republican parties can form. And these parties that form in each state can be and are somewhat different from one another. These differences can make it hard for those people in the party to get along and accomplish their (electoral) goals.
A logical response to American political heterogeneity would be the formation of different “branches” of the same party in various states. American’s interests are so diverse that diverse parties are needed. The decentralization of political power in part causes these different opinions because each state may have different concerns and interests. Unfortunately, decentralization does have the potential to impede effective partisan action. The party has become quite diverse and divisions have been created throughout the party. For example, The Wisconsin Democrats may see things a bit differently than the Wyoming Democrats, and may not be able to work together.
When I think of dissention within a party, the 2008 democratic primary race comes to mind. The race for delegates was close, and some democrats supported Hilary Clinton, while others favored Barack Obama. The whole primary race was one that created division within the Democratic Party. This had the potential to cost the democrats the Presidency.
Right now it’s a bit difficult for me to identify the leader of the Republican Party. What I’m hoping for though is that democrats and republicans can “get in line” behind the new president. In the news Americans hear about Obama’s push for bipartisanship. But not only does this mean democrats working with republicans and vice versa, it also means democrats working with democrats and republicans with republicans.
A logical response to American political heterogeneity would be the formation of different “branches” of the same party in various states. American’s interests are so diverse that diverse parties are needed. The decentralization of political power in part causes these different opinions because each state may have different concerns and interests. Unfortunately, decentralization does have the potential to impede effective partisan action. The party has become quite diverse and divisions have been created throughout the party. For example, The Wisconsin Democrats may see things a bit differently than the Wyoming Democrats, and may not be able to work together.
When I think of dissention within a party, the 2008 democratic primary race comes to mind. The race for delegates was close, and some democrats supported Hilary Clinton, while others favored Barack Obama. The whole primary race was one that created division within the Democratic Party. This had the potential to cost the democrats the Presidency.
Right now it’s a bit difficult for me to identify the leader of the Republican Party. What I’m hoping for though is that democrats and republicans can “get in line” behind the new president. In the news Americans hear about Obama’s push for bipartisanship. But not only does this mean democrats working with republicans and vice versa, it also means democrats working with democrats and republicans with republicans.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Obama Set to Add Republican to Cabinet
This article is about President Obama’s pick for Commerce Secretary. His nominee is Republican Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire. James Madison had mentioned in The Federalist No 10 that political parties stemmed from society’s preferences and factions. And it was these that caused the parties to resent each other. Obama (regardless of any personal opinions) is doing something for the common good by working across party lines. Something that Madison stated wasn’t likely to happen. By creating a bipartisan cabinet, he is bringing multiple view points and various areas of expertise and specialization into the discussion. Regardless of his party, many believe that Gregg is qualified for the job. However, Gregg refuses to leave the Senate if his seat will be lost to a Democrat, which would therefore disrupt the current balance of senators.
What is a Political Party???
Political parties have not always existed in the United States, but rather have developed in the arena of politics since even the early days of Congress. Political parties have developed out of different preferences of the public and their factions.
Professor Tofias, in the notes for this week, began by referencing an equation called, “the first fundamental equation of political science” (an idea of Charles Plott). Where “Preferences X Institutions = Outcomes”. I find this equation thought-stimulating because political parties can be thought of as either preferences or institutions within the political system. The way I have always thought about parties is that they are groups that originate from citizen’s wide array of preferences, or also through their sometimes dissenting opinions or factions. But political parties can also be thought of as institutions in which our preferences are converted into political outcomes, as an arena for expressing our preferences. Or perhaps can political parties be thought of as both?
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 10, discusses factions and the role they have played in shaping the roles and positions of man-kind. He argues that the factions within mankind have split them into parties. Here he sheds a dim light on mankind by saying that the dislike among these parties causes them to loathe the thought of each other instead working together for the “common good” of society. In his opinion, it is through government that these feelings of animosity can be controlled.
One more point from the readings this week. I found George Washington’s farewell address to be rather pessimistic about political parties. While Tom Delay’s farewell address to the House of Representatives takes the opposite view of political parties and somewhat embraces their existence. I’m perplexed by the transition between these two contrasting views, and hope that this course will help me understand it further.
Professor Tofias, in the notes for this week, began by referencing an equation called, “the first fundamental equation of political science” (an idea of Charles Plott). Where “Preferences X Institutions = Outcomes”. I find this equation thought-stimulating because political parties can be thought of as either preferences or institutions within the political system. The way I have always thought about parties is that they are groups that originate from citizen’s wide array of preferences, or also through their sometimes dissenting opinions or factions. But political parties can also be thought of as institutions in which our preferences are converted into political outcomes, as an arena for expressing our preferences. Or perhaps can political parties be thought of as both?
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 10, discusses factions and the role they have played in shaping the roles and positions of man-kind. He argues that the factions within mankind have split them into parties. Here he sheds a dim light on mankind by saying that the dislike among these parties causes them to loathe the thought of each other instead working together for the “common good” of society. In his opinion, it is through government that these feelings of animosity can be controlled.
One more point from the readings this week. I found George Washington’s farewell address to be rather pessimistic about political parties. While Tom Delay’s farewell address to the House of Representatives takes the opposite view of political parties and somewhat embraces their existence. I’m perplexed by the transition between these two contrasting views, and hope that this course will help me understand it further.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)