Suchergebnisse

A hurricane threat, a shortened schedule, some botched scheduling and an audience that couldn't get excited in unison were just a few of the challenges that confronted the Republican Party's Convention that concluded this past week in Tampa, Florida. The main purpose was to reintroduce Mitt Romney to the file and rank of his own party as well as to the wider national audience and to show that, besides business experience and his CEO approach to politics, the man is also human. With the help of Ann Romney, this was arguably accomplished. However, once humanized, the candidate had to convey a compelling message, a vision of the future that would sway the 8% undecided, and convert the anti-Obama into pro-Romney voters. In this, the Convention fell short. His strategic efforts as a candidate in the Primary Election were dedicated to convincing the right wing of the Republican party that his ideas and values had "evolved "from his times of governor of Massachusetts: he is now pro-life and not pro-choice, and his signature health care reform for that state, based on an individual mandate, had very little resemblance to Obamacare. He succeeded then, but these ultra conservative positions alienated two fundamental blocs of voters he will need for the general election, namely, women and Latinos. Indeed, the gender gap puts Obama ahead, with 51% of women voting for Obama and 41% for Romney. The Latino voter gap is at 63% for Obama to 28% for Romney. The campaign's political calculation was thus to use the Convention to appeal to the wider audience by showing the party's "diversity", by "humanizing" the candidate and by convincing the Evangelical right that being Mormon is not a monstrosity. Testimonials by members of his congregation, a convincing speech by Ann Romney and a black- and- white biographical video succeeded in meeting this goal. We learned that Mr. Romney is a wonderful husband and father, a patient man who tries to live by a set of values; that his years as head of a Mormon community were devoted to helping the needy, accompanying the lonely and counseling the troubled. It was also revealed that his tithing was uncommonly and consistently generous. The Convention was carefully staged to show younger, more diverse GOP "rising stars" in order to bring into the fold some of still persuadable minorities. Paul Ryan, the Catholic, strictly anti- abortion 42-year old that completes the ticket, gave an ideological speech that charmed the older generation, with references to "central-planners" and direct attacks on Obama's "socialist" policies, using what could be described at best as half-truths. A great admirer of atheist right-wing writer Ayn Rand, Ryan, a Representative from Wisconsin, rose to fame this past year by presenting a budget plan that would lower taxes for the upper-income bracket, privatize Medicare and harshly restrict social programs. Portraying himself as a compassionate conservative, he is supposed to bring in the Catholic vote. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Florida Senator Marco Rubio used their personal stories aptly and were able to get two of the few electrifying moments of the Convention. Rice's appearance was important after a period of what seemed to be her retirement from politics; she talked optimistically about America, its unbound freedoms, its role as an underwriter of world order, and unquestionably, the land of exceptional opportunity: channeling Obama, she offered her story as a testament of these possibilities. In spite of growing up in the Jim Crow South, she rose to Secretary of State and here she was today, the first "stateswoman" of the Republican Party. Rubio, a fresh-faced 41 year old and the son of working class Cuban immigrants, was the Latino version of the same idea. He had the difficult task of introducing Mitt Romney after the audience was still puzzled at Clint Eastwood's imaginary dialogue with President Obama (represented by an empty chair). After an awkward moment during which the seniors in the audience were still trying to process the meaning of Eastwood's sometimes off-color parody, Rubio managed the transition quite well and soon people were paying him undivided attention. One of the best-received portions was an anecdote about his father, who worked for years at a bar. "He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room," Rubio said, bringing in a huge applause. There were many of these "rag-to-riches" stories aimed at reassuring the viewers that the candidate's wealth is not an obstacle to Romney and Ryan's newly found empathic conservatism. Mitt Romney's entrance along a cordoned red carpet, shaking hands and nodding to groups of supporters on each side, as well as the first few lines of his acceptance speech were shrewdly staged to evoke the State of the Union address. In line with the general theme, he devoted two thirds of his speech to his own biography and very little to the specifics of his economic agenda. While conventions are seldom memorable affairs, and while this one is most likely going to be remembered by the bizarre spectacle of actor Clint Eastwood talking, at times incoherently, to an empty chair, there were other minor headlines running parallel to it that deserve more attention for what they reveal of the long-term GOP plan to re-take government. Under the pretext that voter fraud is prevalent in presidential elections (a claim unsubstantiated by serious research), at least 14 Republican-dominated state legislatures, mostly (but not all) in the South, have been quietly passing new laws aimed at making the act of voting more difficult in those states. The intention is clear: to keep just enough demographic groups likely to vote for the Democrats (namely, young people and minorities) away from the polls. This voter suppression strategy takes different forms, the most prevalent of which is requiring the presentation of government- issued photo IDs, such as a driver's license or a US passport, at the polls It is a well-known fact that many elderly minorities and disabled citizens who don't drive lack these (Social Security cards in the US do not have photos, and there is not voting document such as a "credencial civica" in the US). These groups of people would have a hard time getting one, sometimes requiring them to travel miles away to get to the closest Public Safety office. In the case of young students, university-issued student identification cards for the most part are not accepted at the polls. Other bills and rules were aimed at shortening early voting time frames, repealing Election Day registration laws, and preventing non-profit, non-partisan groups such as the League of Women Voters from organizing voter registration campaigns. This week, however, a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Washington DC struck down a Texas voter ID law. Two days earlier, a different three-judge panel for the same court found that, in its redrawing of the electoral-district map (a practice that takes place every ten years following a national Census), the Texas legislature had intentionally discriminated against minority voters More important than any platform, more lasting than any emotional appeal to voters, voter suppression attempts constitute a politically divisive outrage that goes to the heart of our democracy. Indeed, it is unfathomable that over a century and a half after the Emancipation Proclamation and the Fifteenth Amendment, and half a century after the Voting Rights Act of 1965, minorities in the United States still have to rely on the court system to protect their right to vote. In a presidential election year and with a race as tight as the one we are about to witness in two months, voter turnout is fundamental. Laws aimed at discouraging citizens to vote are a surreptitiously shrewd, anti-democratic way to ensure victory.

In a 5-4 decision that will make history, the Roberts court upheld Obama's signature legislation on health care last week. Contrary to expectations, it was not Justice Anthony Kennedy's "swing" vote that determined the majority but Chief Justice John Roberts himself, who, for the first time in his tenure, joined the liberal wing in upholding the constitutionality of the Patient's Affordable Health Care Act, derisively called "Obamacare" by its opponents. This decision, which will most likely bolster Mr. Obama's re-election chances, was preceded by another victory for the president last week when the Court in a 5-3 vote, struck down all but one of the anti-immigration Arizona bill SB 1070 provisions. The latter ruling dovetailed nicely with Obama's executive order two days earlier to stop deportation of children of illegal immigrants brought to the United States before age 16, and to offer them a path to legal status. The eagerly anticipated ruling astounded conservatives and liberals alike. The same Roberts court had issued the 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited money to finance electoral campaigns and was much vilified by the populace, as well as the 2008 decision that struck down a Washington DC ban on hand guns. Both were major decisions made along ideological lines, which had led to accusations of crude partisan activism by the supreme tribunal. The new ruling is being interpreted as a compromise by a chief justice concerned with preserving the balance of the formal institutions of democratic governance at a time of deep divisions and extra-constitutional conflict in the polity itself. If this was his intention, then it would be in line with the Founders' concerns about the danger of political parties: a society deeply divided along partisan lines is anathema to law and public order, and consequently a threat to the Republic. Could Justice Roberts (who is only in his early 50s) be thinking about his legacy? Or was this a candid interpretation of the statute by a brilliant constitutional scholar? It was in these terms that the media framed the decision as the pundits set out looking for "clues". The Affordable Care Act is a complex piece of legislation and the ruling was bound to be anything but straightforward. The majority decision is so convoluted that there was some confusion in the first few minutes after it was announced. CNN news led with the banner "Individual Mandate found unconstitutional" and had to correct itself a few minutes later with "Health Care Law Upheld" 5-4. This can be explained by the way the decision was written, which is being touted as a brilliant stroke by Roberts. Reluctant to be seen as injecting himself in presidential politics four months before a presidential election, and conscious of Congress prerogatives as the branch of government directly elected by the people, he upheld a politically controversial law while at the same time creating some legal precedents that will in fact pose more limits to the legislative powers of Congress in the long-term. In that sense, many analysts are referring to it as both a political victory for Obama (he got his signature legislation passed, which will give him a general aura of success and thus energize the base) and also a constitutional victory for the Conservatives because it put serious constraints on the Commerce Clause interpretation. Because the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate inter-state commerce, its broad interpretation by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1924 has been the single greatest source of expansion of Congressional authority. Roberts wrote that the Commerce Clause does not apply in this case because Congress cannot regulate "inactivity" (not buying health insurance). In this part of the ruling he was joined by the Conservative judges and the vote was 5-4. In a legal contortion that will be examined by constitutional scholars for decades to come, Roberts then pivoted and with the assent of Liberal wing (5-4), ruled that Congress does havethe power to fine individuals who do not buy insurance coverage under a its taxing authority. Failure to buy health insurance will result in a punitive measure which can be construed as a tax to influence behavior, just like taxes on cigarettes or alcohol. And since the exaction is modest, individuals still can exercise their freedom, not buy health insurance and pay the penalty instead. This exercise in semantics was viciously attacked by the dissenting judges (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy) who wrote that the Chief Justice's logic "was not to interpret the statute but to re-write it". In fact, Roberts' reasoning hinges on his belief that in his capacity, he should find a "saving construction" to uphold laws passed by Congress, whose mandate is validated by regular elections. Though the Constitution gives Congress broad taxing powers, when the bill was being discussed, President Obama, aware of the spleen the word elicits in some constituencies, repeatedly refused to call the penalty a tax, insisting that it was a "shared responsibility", not a tax. This cautious choice of words will give further ammunition to his contender Mitt Romney, who is running on a platform of fewer and lower taxes and who, immediately after the ruling, promised once again to repeal the law "on his first day in office". Ironically, Governor Romney's own legislation for the state of Massachusetts in 2006 was the model for "Obamacare": it was built around the individual mandate and the principle of personal responsibility, which was "essential to bring down the costs of health care" (his own words). It was indeed a Republican idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation think tank and had the full support of the private sector (insurance companies, hospitals and pharmaceutical industry). It was only in 2006, when the idea migrated to the Left, that its constitutionality became suspect. But in the present national environment, politics trumps policy. Since 1942, the Commerce Clause has been used as the constitutional basis for modern government to regulate economic activity (much of which did not cross state lines). The health industry is one of the largest economic activities and it does clearly spill over state lines. Does the decision constitute a new jurisprudence restricting those legislative powers that made the New Deal possible? Or is this a narrow ruling that applies only to a sui generis, very specific activity and there probably won't be other issues that require a federal mandate as a solution? Is the individual mandate simply a "free-loader fee" and not an expansion of federal power? History will tell. For the time being, there is a sense that the institutional order prevailed over political divisions and the Founders' Republic is thus safe. However, in their "nullification by any means" strategy, Republicans are now pivoting to another major finding by the Court, in this instance on the expansion of Medicaid (public health care for the indigent that states administer with federal grants), which will now include those receiving an income of up to 133% above the poverty line. While the expansion itself was found constitutional (and it is wholly funded by federal money for the first three years of implementation), the federal government's coercive power to withdraw present funds from states that do not accept it was struck down by a 7-2 vote. This has opened a new political front for Republicans. In their determination to make it impossible for Democrats to govern, they have turned to state governors for help: at least seven Republican governors have already claimed they will not accept federal funding to expand Medicaid. This provides enough fodder for their immediate political interests: to portray the President as a big spender who has no interest in reducing the deficit. Their political calculation is based on the fact that the lower income groups that will receive or not those benefits are not their voters. In a tight race, this could be a winning strategy.

The current global economic crisis is exposing a concomitant yet deeper governability crisis in the developed world. As anti-incumbent sentiment sweeps Europe, Americans are recovering from a relentlessly destructive Republican primary season is over and bracing themselves for the upcoming election season, which may arguably be the most important in our lifetime. The federal government is paralyzed by deep and irreconcilable views on how to solve the problems of huge sovereign debt, a gaping budget deficit, the cost of health care and immigration reform, to name some of the most salient issues. Controversial federal and state legislation aimed at solving these problems is increasingly being challenged at the Supreme Court, where nine unelected judges will determine their constitutionality. Globalization has produced a special set of challenges: an open world economy has forced governments to maintain fiscal stability over the long term in order to maintain the value of their currencies and stock markets, as well as access to credit. At the same time, advanced democracies are facing the limits of the welfare state, as well as demographic pressures as baby boomers retire; and immigrants (who could provide part of the solution to some of those problems) are less welcome today than ever. Trust in politicians, elected officials and major institutions, has declined steadily over the last twenty-five years; it is not by coincidence that this spreading disillusionment with the democratic order affects not only Europe but also the United States. The recent turnover of governments in Europe, and the polarization of American politics reveal an alarming lack of confidence in democracy and its institutions. This cynicism is growing: indeed, the question is no longer whether the government is sufficiently responsive to the demands and interests of citizens, but whether, in a context of global pressures, it is in fact capable of effectively solving the current problems. In the United States, widespread skepticism now extends to all formal institutions of governance, not only elected ones but even unelected ones. This sentiment is especially problematic and indicative of a very entrenched distrust that will not be easily dispelled. Only ten years ago, political scientists found that in spite of disenchantment with politicians and elected officials, Americans still had a strong respect for the Armed Forces, the Federal Reserve Bank and the Supreme Court. They had concluded that this was due to the fact that these bodies were insulated from populist pressures and the omnipresent poll. More recently, however, studies by Ronald Inglehart and others have found a severe decrease in public confidence in the Armed Services, the Judiciary, police, civil service and state legislatures. It is one thing for people to blame the current government for economic crisis; it is quite different if this skepticism extends beyond incumbents to the formal institutions of governance. Today, Americans are challenging the very constitutional premises on which the country was founded, namely, diffusion of power and checks and balances. The perceived (and factual) decline in capacity of political agents to act on behalf of citizens' interests and demands is due mostly to the forces of globalization and interdependence which have led to reduced effectiveness in public policy. Incongruence between the diktat of international markets and domestic needs has put constraints on political agents' actions. But there are other factors that need to be considered as well, namely, failure in political leadership, bad judgment on the part of voters and elected officials, the deterioration of social capital and a media that provokes rather than informs. How are politicians and political parties responding to this rising trend of dissatisfaction and anger? By following every poll, seeking lobbyists' approval and changing their positions daily to adapt them to the latest voters' opinions. This is weakening representative democracy and distorting the democratic process. Congressional inability to compromise and solve the problems results in the judicialization of politics as the two ideological camps increasingly rely on judicial review as the alternative. This is turn leads inevitably to the politicization of the Judiciary. The whole Constitutional architecture that was built around diffusion of power, checks and balances and fear of accumulation of power in any one branch of government is now being challenged by the protections given to individual interest groups and by ceding too much power to unelected, nominally non-ideological Supreme Court judges. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has made its mark on politics early on by its Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission decision, which has allowed indirect, unlimited political contributions by corporations and unions, thereby further entrenching corporate power into the political system. Another good example of the judicialization of politics is the bitter debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010, before the legislative election deprived Democrats of the ability to pass any other significant piece of legislation. In a cumbersome process that involved hundreds of lobbies from the grassroots as well as health insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, the administration was able to hammer out a compromise that met some of the basic requirements of patients and consumer groups, as well as the market-based method preferred by the rest o the coalition. The result was a law that was passed in spite of the negative vote of all Republicans in both Houses. It is based on a central pillar to reduce national health care costs: every citizen not covered by an employer or government plan must buy health insurance (so as to avoid the free rider problem of consuming without paying). The constitutionality of this law, main parts of which have not yet entered into force, was immediately challenged by 27 states as well as other organizations and individuals, and is now under Supreme Court review. The complexity of the issue and the polarized atmosphere surrounding it may well sway judges to exert their (ideological) "will" rather than their (objective) "judgment", to paraphrase Hamilton's warning, thus delivering an important political victory for Republicans this summer, at the height of the presidential campaign season. Conversely, a virulent anti-immigrant law passed by the state of Arizona is also being challenged before the Supreme Court. In this case it was the other side, the Justice Department, which sued over the right of states to pass immigration legislation, which is generally construed as a federal policy. Immigration will be a central issue in the coming presidential election, so the Court's ruling will again inevitably have political ramifications.In the XIX and XX centuries, The Leviathan state managed the process of modernization and industrialization and represented a shift from culturally- based decentralized institutions, whose legitimacy emanated from tradition, to state institutions deriving their authority from rational-legal instruments. Today we are experiencing a decline of state authority in a new context of globalization and open societies, and the trend is again toward decentralization of authority, focus on individual rights and less hierarchical, more market-oriented societal practices, that have yet to produce a new political order. Unfortunately, the "intermediary associations" of civil society that Alexis de Tocqueville identified as the main repository of democracy in America, are becoming less active, due to the increased post-modern individualism, itself reinforced by the technological revolution and by a cultural anarchy that demands the "democratization of everything"(think Wiki leaks, hacking, intellectual property piracy). An authority system linked to a stable culture which in turn is anchored on a moral code, breeds trust and generates internalized support. The current economic crisis, in the context of the highest income inequality in the history of the United States, has led to a revival of ideological rhetoric and endless partisan conflict, which erodes faith in the system as a whole. It is in moments like this that civil society becomes most relevant. Extreme capitalism has led to extreme individualism and lack of societal solidarity. Abundant resources allowed the social balance to tilt in favor of individual rights and entitlements and away from social responsibility. The present crisis may help restore that balance as individuals realize that the state has exhausted its capability for further entitlements and that society will have to rebuild its social capital to fill the void.

In what could turn out to be his boldest decision of this election cycle, this past weekend presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced he was picking Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-president, thus clearing many doubts the Republican base had about Romney. Paul Ryan is the author of an ultra-conservative budget plan that will drastically reduce the size of government programs. A Roman Catholic, he is a social conservative and strongly anti-abortion. This should be more than enough reassurance for Tea Partiers and the Evangelical right, and should assuage the anxiety about having to vote for a Mormon. The announcement was made early Saturday morning, at a rally on the Norfolk, Va., scenic waterfront, with the battleship Wisconsin framing the stage. They were received by a large cheering, mostly middle-aged and white crowd, and the symbolism was quite patent: Virginia, a swing state, is also the home of the U.S Atlantic fleet and the NATO Supreme Allied Command; the Ryan fiscal plan is quite lenient on military spending. This is clearly the turning point of his campaign: unable to c lose the gap that separates him from Mr. Obama (by 6 % points, according to polls right before the announcement), Mr. Romney made a decision that will excite the base and show Republicans that he is indeed committed to aggressively dealing with the deficit problem through drastic tax reform and cuts in domestic programs. With this announcement, he has defined himself as a bold reformer and made it clear to the electorate that entitlement reform will be the centerpiece of his administration. In its own way, it is also a singularly progressive ticket: this will be the first major party ticket in US history with no Protestant candidate. Wisconsin Congressman Ryan became well-known during the difficult Congress debt and deficit reduction debates when, as head of the House Budget Committee, he presented a very specific proposal to control federal spending, privatize Medicare and reform the tax system. While there is bipartisan consensus that deficit reduction is a must, Democrats propose to do it over a longer term, especially since cutting government spending is unthinkable during a recession, and to raise taxes on the wealthy as soon as the Bush tax cuts have expired. Republicans, on the other hand, want to cut programs for the needy as well as taxes for the upper bracket, since the wealthy are also the job creators, according to their view. As Paul Gigot said in an earlier Wall Street Journal editorial, he best "exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election". Paul Ryan is indeed a thoughtful, serious politician, a man of big ideas who focuses more on policy than on politics. And while Vice-presidential candidates do not determine elections, Ryan will certainly excite the base and shake up the turnout. Some Republicans in Congress, however, have expressed their uneasiness about Ryan's direct assault on Medicare and Social Security, which they find politically dangerous: it may affect the senior vote in key swing states like Florida, and retirees constitute the most reliable voter block on Election Day: rain or sun they will find their way to the voting booth. This election will again be determined mainly by turnout. But in spite of the risk, this bold choice puts the lackluster Romney campaign on more secure footing: he is now a leader with a vision and a plan for dealing with the national debt. Whether you agree with Paul Ryan's budget plan or not (he would cut entitlements, change the way Medicare is delivered and make the tax system less progressive), his youth, intelligence, good looks and candid approach is refreshing to most audiences. Because he is a true heir to the Reagan revolution (during his formative years as a congressional aid he was drafted as a policy aid to Empower America, a think tank focused on preserving the Reagan legacy) he is not only a magnet for the Tea Partiers but also to the supply-siders and Reagan admirers, in other words, a true fiscally conservative Republican. Surprisingly, most Democrats welcomed the choice if for nothing else because it opens new opportunities for more substantive and targeted attacks on Romney. The shift to a more philosophical discussion on the nature of government will be relished by Obama since it will give him a chance to explain his own vision instead of being on the defense from weak job reports, month after month. In the meantime, while Washington focuses on debt, deficit reduction and the ominous "fiscal cliff", the US remains a magnet for foreign investors who prefer US Treasury bonds as the safest haven on earth. This breeds complacency and defers serious efforts by either party to cut spending. Sobre la autora Profesora de Política Comparativa. Universidad del Old Dominion, Norfolk, Virginia.