Political Observations

My name is Oliver Rooney. I started this blog during my undergraduate degree in Politics and International Relations at the University of Southampton and I now use this space to share my comments, observations and thoughts on current affairs.

[oroons]

Jeb Bush, the support of the Christian Right, and what it means for 2016

Speaking at a Catholic school benefit in New York on 23rd April, Jeb Bush announced he’s “thinking about running for president”. The Washington Post reports that “prominent donors, conservative leaders and long-time operatives say they consider Bush the GOP’s brightest hope to win back the White House”.

Why? Some attribute his popularity to the support of the Christian Right.

In an interview with Real Clear Politics, Hispanic evangelical leader Rev. Samuel Rodriguez spoke of Bush as “an attractive candidate for evangelicals that adhere to a pro-faith family and religious freedom agenda”. It’s easy to see why. ‘Choose Life’ license plates were signed into law by Bush during his tenure as Governor of Florida in 1999. In a 2003 court case, Bush ordered lawyers to appoint a representative for the foetus of a developmentally disabled rape victim. He also fought a two-year court case to keep alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman on life support.

However, some argue that support from the Christian Right is largely irrelevant in today’s Republican agenda. Writing for New Republic, Michael Kazin believes the Christian Right to be a “fading force in American life” because of the shifting consensus on big issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

There is growing tolerance, acceptance and support for issues like abortion, and the GOP can no longer garner the simultaneous support of the Christian Right and wider American public by asserting their opposition to it. Any act which appeases the Christian Right risks alienating the swing vote.

If the GOP wishes to succeed in 2016, focus should be turned to reinforcing their stance on issues such as immigration and education; areas which Jeb Bush causes much concern. Bush recently angered some conservatives by saying immigrants come to the United States illegally out of an “act of love” to help their families. On the topic of education, Bush’s advocacy of the Common Core State Standards Initiative goes against the grain of the Republicans.

There is considerable disagreement with the assertion that Jeb Bush can do well in 2016 as a result of Christian Right backing because they are no longer the influential power they used to be. But perhaps more importantly, Bush’s breaches in Republican orthodoxy over fundamental issues such as immigration will test the faith and trust of traditional conservative voters. 

30th March 2014

[oroons]

The Democrats will struggle to keep the Senate, but so would the GOP in 2016

Speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama painted a pessimistic picture for the upcoming midterm elections. “In midterms we get clobbered - either because we don’t think it’s important or we’ve become so discouraged about what’s happening in Washington that we think it’s not worth our while”.  Obama went on to confess a sense of urgency in a (futile) attempt to redress the balance of turnout this year. But is Obama’s urgency warranted?

The problem of turnout at midterm elections is a well-established one. Every four years, the percentage of eligible voters that go to the polls hovers around a mere 40 percent, which never translates well in Congress. Since the American Civil War, the president’s party has only managed to pick up seats three times. It’s a customary affair.

So what can we expect in November? The president's party has not picked up more than 9 seats in a midterm since 1865. The Democrats need 17. It’s safe to say the House will remain Republican. As for the Senate, a cluster of polls supports the expectations of many: the Democrats are going to have a hard time holding the majority, in part due to vulnerable seats held in states such as South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana.

CNS news, amongst other conservative media sources, took great pleasure in headlining a recent quote by Obama’s former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “if you lose the Senate, turn out the lights because the party's over". Needless to say, Republicans will take a more literal view on Gibbs’ choice of the word ‘party’.

But Robert Gibbs isn’t necessarily correct. The Democrats may well lose the Senate this year, but it is doubtful that the GOP would be able to hold it for more than two years. In 2016, the situation that the Democrats currently face will be thrown into reverse. Republicans will have 23 seats up compared to just 10 Democrat seats, many of which will be in vulnerable, Democratic territory.

There is certainly scepticism over the importance of this year’s midterm elections. The House of Representatives will remain Republican, that’s almost certain, and it’s certainly possible the Senate will see a new majority. Yet this could be short lived because vulnerable seats largely dictate success in the Senate. It would appear then, that Obama’s sense of urgency is somewhat unwarranted.

21st March

[oroons]

The unsure uninsured and their misrepresentation through the negative influence of the media

 27th February 2014

Results from the latest tracking poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation have recently emerged which show that the uninsured are unsurprisingly wary of the effectiveness of Obamacare. February findings illustrate that 56% of those uninsured hold an ‘unfavourable’ view of the health reform bill. The Washington Times have utilised this outcome to claim the uninsured have “turned up noses at Obamacare”. However, further investigation reveals that such a conclusion would be a deceptive manipulation of the findings. In reality, befuddlement has translated into ‘unfavourable opinion’ because it is the default answer for the unsure and the unaware.

Half of the problem becomes clear when assessing the wording of the poll. The question “Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favourable opinion of it?” commands the respondent to put aside their lack of comprehension on the reform, and invites an influenced opinion. It is a loaded question which, unless wholly informed, steers the respondent toward an ‘unfavourable’ view as the default. Why? The media has a lot to answer for here.

The very same Kaiser Health Tracking Poll reveals a conveniently neglected insight into media influence. 37% of respondents say they saw or heard stories in the news about an individual/family that was harmed by the new law, whilst only 26% saw stories where the individual/family had been helped.  The Kaiser Family Foundation concede that a “majority of the public say their impression of the ACA law is based on what they’ve seen in the media”, supported by the findings that 54% have had no personal experience with the health reform law.

Hilary Clinton addressed this very issue just this Wednesday. Speaking to a group of supporters at the University of Miami, she said all the “misinformation” was hindering discussion in Washington, stating that “part of the challenge is to clear away all the smoke and try to figure out what is working and what isn’t”.

It is apparent that The Washington Times has selectively (and successfully) handled misleading data in the knowledge that there is a distinct lack of awareness surrounding the health care reform on simple issues such as the deadline for sign up. There is work to be done to ensure facts penetrate the media mud, allowing the uninsured to reach their own genuine, uninfluenced opinion. 

[oroons]

Scottish independence, the currency union block and a failure of the democratic process

With the three main Westminster parties agreeing to a currency union block last week, the SNP face a bit of a dilemma. Go to Scotland’s official referendum website, and you’ll find an optimistically phrased FAQ: “We propose that the pound Sterling will continue to be the currency of an independent Scotland”. But it is becoming increasingly clear that Scotland will have to think again.

Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander suggested options (albeit with indifferent expression); “What is Mr Salmonds plan? Does he want to join the Euro, does he want to have another countries currency circulating in Scotland like Panama does with the dollar?” For the Lib Dem, Salmond’s plan A is well and truly off the table.

Yet Salmond remains resolute. Yesterday in a half hour speech to a pro-independence crowd, he responded by asserting the Westminster intervention had already “backfired badly”. The SNP leader branded the move a diktat due to the poor Scottish reception from the empirically representative “phone-ins and newspaper polls”.

One thing does resonate with me however. Whether or not the UK and Scotland would benefit from a currency union is seemingly cloudy. Nevertheless, the report put forward by the Fiscal Commission Working Group is irrefutably impressive, not least due to the contribution and endorsement from top economy buffs.  It outlines four currency options in detail and provides commendable and empirical evidence as to why a currency union would be beneficial. (See box 7.02)

George Osborne has been relatively dismissive of the report. In fact, counter arguments fail to address the main tenets of the report in any regard. Go to the Government page which addresses the title “Why a currency union would be bad for Scotland and the UK” and you’ll encounter a mere 7 bullet points of backward looking arguments and sweeping statements, without a link to their own report on currency and monetary policy published last April. Go to the Scottish referendum website and you’ll see a consideration of the UK Government report and a fair rebuttal of their claims.

It seems to me that a currency union block was a clever move on the chess board, whilst a tactical avoidance of a glaringly obvious problem. Sharing the pound would provide invaluable leverage to the referendum and Westminster knew it. Westminster also knew that, all things considered, they didn’t have a foot to stand on in arguing why a currency union would be such a bad thing. It also seems to me that George Osborne’s failure to address the report by the Fiscal Commission Working Group was a failure to debate and discuss, and ultimately, a failure to uphold democratic principles.