Este artículo revisa la producción académica sobre distributive politics o distribución política de recursos públicos dando cuenta de los diferentes enfoques de orden internacional y en Colombia. Se propone clasificar la bibliografía de acuerdo con la institución política estudiada y su impacto en la lógica distributiva. Los estudios internacionales y en Colombia presentan el balance de los casos estudiados sobre el Congreso, los swing or core voters, los programas sociales y gobiernos subnacionales. También se ofrecen unas perspectivas para la comprensión y análisis del clientelismo asociado a la distribución política de recursos públicos por parte de partidos políticos en el sistema político colombiano para conocer el funcionamiento y la calidad de las instituciones y la democracia nacional y subnacional.
Este artículo revisa la producción académica sobre distributive politics o distribución política de recursos públicos dando cuenta de los diferentes enfoques de orden internacional y en Colombia. Se propone clasificar la bibliografía de acuerdo con la institución política estudiada y su impacto en la lógica distributiva. Los estudios internacionales y en Colombia presentan el balance de los casos estudiados sobre el Congreso, los swing or core voters, los programas sociales y gobiernos subnacionales. También se ofrecen unas perspectivas para la comprensión y análisis del clientelismo asociado a la distribución política de recursos públicos por parte de partidos políticos en el sistema político colombiano para conocer el funcionamiento y la calidad de las instituciones y la democracia nacional y subnacional.
El texto, a partir de la situación laboral y educativa de la mujer Mariela en la década delos treinta, analiza el proceso de participación política y electoral de la mujer en las eleccionescelebradas en Madrid durante la II República en su triple faceta de electora, propagandista ycandidata, demostrando que los resultados de las elecciones de 1933 no fueron achacables alcomportamiento electoral de la mujer sino al del conjunto del electorado, derechizado por muydiversos factores de la coyuntura política. ; Based on the educational and labour situation of women in Madrid during the thirties, thetext analyzes the political and electoral participation of women as voters, propagandists andcandidates in the Madrid elections in the Second Republic, and it shows that the results of the1933 election were not attributable to womens's electoral behaviour, but rather to a swing tothe right of the electorate as a whole, due to various political factors.
The emerging power of the Latino community has become a recurring reflection for most analyses of the United States of America over the last two decades. However, their presence on the media usually focuses on two factors: the increasing immigration of undocumented workers, mostly from Mexico, and their decisive condition as voters due to their presence in the so-called "swing" States, which provides specific power to the Hispanic population to choose the President, especially when they are as disputed as the 2012 general elections. Barack Obama, whose presidential rhetoric has been extensively studied, decided to change his immigration policies during his campaign and to adapt his speech accordingly. It is our aim to study his rhetoric and figurative language as a means of electoral persuasion by analyzing two of his most representative speeches specifically addressed to a Latino audience: "Remarks by the President at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Annual Conference" (2012) and "Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (2013) under those theoretical approaches of the Political Discourse Analysis, the Critical Discourse Analysis and the Corpus Approach to Critical Metaphor Analysis, at the same time based on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, so as to perceive how the presidential speech deals with the Hispanic community. The findings analyze the frequent appeals to movement, justice and personal and local references in the form of acknowledgement together with a predominant use of conceptual metaphors on the American dream. His metaphors prove this concept is conceived by him as a path forward to citizenship, and his use of them, so common in Obama's discourse, makes him devote once again his addresses to Latinos to the uniqueness of the United States, provided by the mosaic of cultural juxtaposition. ; El poder emergente de la comunidad latina en Estados Unidos se ha convertido en referencia casi obligada en los análisis de la situación de este país en las ...
The largest and fastest growing minority in the United States has not yet reached the level of political participation that could transform its numbers into tangible political power. Still, its surge, especially in certain key "battle" states, will be crucial for the outcome of the 2012 election. This realization has both parties scrambling to reach out to Hispanics. For the first time, an anti-Obama advertisement campaign has been launched in Spanish language in the state of Virginia, for example. This unprecedented move is part of a two-month, twenty million dollar anti -Obama push paid for by conservative group Crossroads GPS. The Obama White House has also organized its early campaign stage around this reality: it is consistently sending out emails in Spanish to its Latino constituents, enlisting their support with voter registration and the mobilization of their communities. Overall, the 2010 Census found that the number of eligible Hispanic voters has gone from 18million in 2008 to 22 million in 2010. This, coupled with the esoteric Electoral College voting system based on Winner Takes All by state, brings into sharp focus the importance of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election.The huge increase in Hispanic voting population in several key "swing" states which Obama won in 2008 is not going unnoticed by his campaign. Between 2008 and 2010, the voting age Latino population has grown by 19% in Virginia, by 20% in Nevada and by 40% in North Carolina. In Florida, the largest and most competitive swing state, it grew by 13%, adding 250,000 new voters. The arithmetic is pretty clear, to be re-elected, President Obama needs to win these states and that is why he is already campaigning in each of them.Obama won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, but many voters, disillusioned with the high unemployment rate in the community (11.3%, compared to the national 9% rate), and the failure of the administration to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority, may not show up on election day. As usual, turn out will be key. The latest Gallup poll found that his approval among Hispanics is only 48%. This decrease in support is mainly due to economic woes and the fact that many in the community have been unable to refinance their mortgages and are losing their houses. To this it must be added that the loss of support is to some extent of his own making. In order to prove his security credentials with the country at large, Obama has deported more than one million of illegal immigrants in three years. Although he gave directives to his ICE agents to focus on those with a criminal record, the fact is this puts him at odds with the community and undermines his canvassing efforts and Latino youth outreach in the neighborhoods.On the other hand, given the deep discontent with the economic situation, the Republican Party is missing a great opportunity to bring at least some part of the Hispanic vote back to their party. While GW Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, John Mc Cain got only 31% in 2008. In the Senate, he had been a supporter of immigration reform and had cooperated with Edward Kennedy to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill that failed. Once he became a presidential candidate, he was bashed by the other candidates in the primary and completely changed his tune, saying he did believe in border security first. Such is the nature of primaries and their transformative power. This same kind of rhetoric still permeates the Republican primary today and is alienating Hispanics faster than any Crossroads ads bashing Obama.Just like the rest of the population, the main concern of Latino voters is slow economic growth coupled with high unemployment. However, they cannot ignore the offensive rhetoric that Republican primary candidates are spewing in order to energize their white rural base. Immigration has turned out to be a fundamental wedge issue among GOP candidates, and probably the one that allows them to throw the most "red meat" to the Tea Party wing of the electorate. Rick Perry, for example, was lambasted for his sensible, moderate immigration stance of allowing some undocumented Latino high school graduates living in the State of Texas to pay the same lower tuition rates as the rest of Texas residents. Herman Cain called for an electrified fence to prevent Mexicans from entering the United States (later he claimed it was a joke and apologized, but very few could see the humor in it). Michelle Bachman had earlier raised the issue of the so-called "anchor babies" whose mothers "purposefully" come to the United States to give birth so that their children will be US citizens; this led to the formation of a whole movement within the extreme wing of the party to change the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to those born here. Responding to this demand, a group of GOP lawmakers very irresponsibly formed a committee to give "serious consideration" to the issue. Of course this is all a political move. This is a country of immigrants, and getting rid of the 14th Amendment would mean casting away one of its most valued foundational principles. One wonders if anti-Obama Spanish-language ads will be enough to counteract what seems to be a GOP all-out effort to offend not only Latinos but all citizens born here from immigrant parents.Historically, with the exception of the early arrived Cuban-Americans and other smaller Latino elites in Miami, Hispanic voters flock naturally to the Democratic Party because it is the party that focuses on jobs, public education, redistribution of wealth and welfare benefits, all values that are in line with what most Latino immigrants expect from the government. However, many are social conservatives and on social policies like abortion and gay marriage, they are ideologically closer to Republicans. The 2010 mid-term elections resulted in 30 Latinos being elected to the US House; and although Democratic candidates won the Latino votes, in most cases by wide margins, there were three important exceptions: a young Cuban, Marco Rubio, got elected to the US Senate in Florida, and two governorships were also won by Republican Hispanics (New Mexico and Nevada). Marco Rubio is constantly mentioned among the pundits as a likely GOP vice-presidential candidate, and by the way he consistently ducks the issue of immigration reform, he will accept it if offered. As these important recent victories show, there appears to be an opening for the GOP to recover some swathes of the Latino electorate.Republican tough rhetoric on tall electrified fences, on denying services and ending birth citizenship rights for immigrants' children will most likely subside immediately after the primary election. Once results are known and the anointed candidate starts his national campaign, the tone will be completely different. However, this kind of insensitive, offensive talk about Hispanics on the part of the candidates is neither prudent nor wise. At the ballot box, strong emotions often trump rational arguments, and even if they blame the president for the state of the economy and feel somewhat neglected by Obama, Hispanics will probably continue to favor Democrats over Republicans. As recognized by responsible voices within the GOP establishment such as Jeb Bush, this is a long-term strategic problem for the party.In 2010, Senator majority leader Harry Reid was very close to losing his seat to a Tea Party candidate when he decided to mobilize the Latino base: he promised them he would bring the DREAM Act to the floor again. This bill, which would allow undocumented students a path to citizenship if they meet certain requirements, including making good grades in school and serving in the military, had been removed from the Congressional agenda until 2013. By simply saying he would bring it back to the floor for debate, Harry Reid won the election, as Latinos came out en masse to vote for him. Both parties should consider taking a page out of Senator Reid's playbook. Whoever reaches out and strongly insists on rational Immigration Reform, thereby reassuring Hispanics they too can have their share of the American dream, will greatly enhance his or her chances of winning a large percentage of the Hispanic vote and with it, the White House. For their part, Hispanic voters should realize the potential of their own demographic power and bring it to political fruition.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Having reached the mark of 2,118 delegates, Barack Obama has gone from candidate in the closest head-to-head primary ever to presumptive nominee. Appropriately, he will accept the nomination at the August convention in Denver, on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. This is political history in the making: he is the first African-American to be the head of the presidential ticket of a major party. After years of angst and self doubt, there is a renewed optimism on the street, and a whole new group of voters has been mobilized. However, Obama, who has run on a message of hope and change, faces an extremely difficult path ahead. His vulnerabilities have become apparent in the succession of events over the last few weeks of this long primary season.He lost nine of the last fourteen primaries, including South Dakota, where he was favored (55% to 45%), and Puerto Rico (68% to 42%); he has had to cut ties with his Church due to its radicalism and anti-establishment stance, and, one day after Obama claimed the nomination, one of his top fund-raisers was found guilty of wire fraud and money laundering in a federal court in Chicago. Now his campaign will have to overcome this dry patch and move forward to the greater challenge, that of defeating McCain. His next task at hand is to choose a vice-president, and this, too, poses a serious dilemma.In the first place, Hillary Rodham-Clinton took five days to acknowledge defeat, giving cause for some speculation that she is pressing for the vice-presidential spot with the implied threat that she will continue fighting all the way to the convention. She has the right to do so, if we consider the fact that she has won all of the big states and probably a larger number of the popular vote (around 18 million). And, as she not so humbly claims, she is the more experienced candidate who could better stand up to McCain. On the other hand, there is great concern that Barack's image as the unconventional, charismatic, post-modern Washington outsider will be damaged if he chooses her. So the decision will require reflection, pondering and a lot of vetting interviews of alternative candidates.Much ink will be spent in speculating why Hillary lost the primary. Here, I will just offer a few reflections, leaving the second guessing of the way her campaign was run to those who will manically analyze every decision taken, every tactic used, every gesture, every word, and will have their eureka moments when finding the flaw, the error, the underestimation that brought her down. And yet, quite often fate, luck and other imponderables irrevocably determine the outcome of a narrow race, regardless of the brilliant strategies of the campaign managers, advisers and other experts. It has already been said that Rodham Clinton started her campaign as the inevitable candidate, as the incumbent, and that her sense of entitlement turned many voters away. At the same time, her main message was one of change, of moving forward, of undoing the Bush legacy, but Obama co-opted that message, and he was much more convincing as an agent of change. Hillary began her campaign running not as a woman, but as the most hardened and experienced, candidate that would deliver both peace and prosperity to all Americans. Obama ran from the beginning as the post-racial candidate and this theme remained constant throughout his campaign. She was trying to woo independents and disaffected Republicans and had thus to prove that she was as tough as John McCain. Obama had no intention of treading down that path, which he derided as part of the Washington game. Instead, he stuck fearlessly to his convictions. It was this independent streak, his absolute confidence in the soundness of his cool, post-modern world vision that was irresistible to the young voters. This should not obfuscate the fact that both ran historic campaigns and have unremittingly shattered the barriers of gender and race in American politics at the highest level. Still, the promise of change was more credible when pledged by the young unknown than by the seasoned insider. With no substantial philosophical differences between the two, the richer contrast was all inspiration and charisma versus politics as usual.First of all, we need to consider a fundamental fact: even if the media and their respective campaigns have played up the differences between the two candidates, their basic policy choices and ideologies are one and the same. From health care to fiscal policy, from education to foreign policy, there may be some minimal disagreements but they both share the basic ideology of more equitable economic distribution, protection of civil rights and overall tolerance toward others that typify Democrats in the United States. Some observers may bring up Hillary's vote in favor of the Iraqi invasion of 2003 as evidence of an important disagreement, and also a cause of her loss of popularity in the early stages of the campaign. That certainly did her harm, which is ironic because, in academic and political circles alike, few believe it represents her real conviction. As a Senator for New York and a future presidential candidate, she carefully chose to vote in favor of a war that, in October 2002, had a high rate of approval among the population, who had clearly bought the Republican idea that the invasion "over there" would make us safer "over here". At the time, she hedged that gamble against the fact that "there was enough evidence" Saddam was piling up WMDs, which had little to do with 9-11 and Al Qaeda. But a scared populace is an easy target for deception and false reassurances. Intent on proving her masculine toughness on security issues, she fell into the Republican trap. Five years down the road, this carefully measured decision came back to haunt her, and the controversy over that vote generated an enormous surge of support for Obama that might have created the momentum that helped him win the early contests, namely, the Iowa caucuses and the wins of February 5th. This momentum, coupled with the televised debates, proved he was a worthy, viable candidate; it brought the media to his side and attracted new voters. He irradiated a cool self-assurance, a subdued charm, an understated intelligence that was indeed enchanting to young voters, to black voters and to hard core Democrats tired of the vitriol of Washington. The country, it seemed, was ready for Obama. His timing was impeccable and had the effect of making Rodham-Clinton look tired, strident and blasé. The media had found its golden boy and started treating Hillary as the intruder, who would do anything to prevent a new Camelot.After his initial sweep, Hillary slowly started to recover and as the campaign progressed, her message became more focused and she found her voice. She switched strategies and, from being the more experienced candidate that would deliver peace and prosperity to all Americans, she turned back to her traditional constituencies, namely, women and blue-collar workers. Speaking to her strengths, namely, her devotion to public service and her familiarity with the intricacies of policy-making, she became a great communicator that invariably connected with her audiences. And she started winning again.Even those that dislike her have to acknowledge her skills as a campaigner, her endurance and poise under tremendous pressure and, more importantly, her dramatic recovery of the popular vote towards the end of the campaign, which made her claim to bring this battle to the convention quite legitimate. Her wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, as well as her immense support in the Hispanic community as shown by the Puerto Rican vote, cannot be discounted by the party when it looks ahead to the national election in November.One should bear in mind that these primaries were the closest contest in primary history, and in spite of having the whole media establishment against her from the beginning, Hillary did not at any time show signs of faltering or self-doubt and never allowed herself to make the road easier for Obama. She stayed on message, speaking to the issues, proving she was ready to become the first woman president. Both her competency and her warmth gained her a huge following. But once she lost the media she also started losing the super-delegates from inside the party. One after the other, the big names in the party started lining up behind Obama: Tom Daschle, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, and towards the end, even John Edwards.This took many by surprise, and is related to another phenomenon that very few had perceived before: the animosity that the Clintons, especially Bill, provoke from within the party itself. Although Bill and Hillary are the most powerful brand name in the Democratic Party, there is a surprising amount of anger against them that had remained latent till now. Bill Clinton's harsh remarks in South Carolina primary astonished many and may have hurt her campaign, reinforcing the perception that the Clintons would do anything, even play the race card, in order to win the White House.Then there was the question of demographics and identity politics. Although Rodham-Clinton attempted to run as the candidate for all, after the first losses and as she increasingly won the vote of women and blue collar workers, she turned to her natural constituencies. She started running as a woman and as the champion of the working class. In her new more populist persona, she also won among Jews, Catholics and rural workers. Obama did best among college educated youth, intellectuals and black voters. In other words, they both win the identity vote. Identity has come up often during the campaign, and not in a positive way. Irate at the way the media were treating Hillary and indulging Obama especially in interviews (there was even a sketch in Saturday Night Live that parodied this noticeable difference), Geraldine Ferraro accused the media of sexism and went as far as saying that Obama would not be treated with so much deference if he was a white man. After disproportionate outcry by the media and the public, Clinton had to fire Ferraro as her advisor. Thus, bringing up sexism completely backfired for Hillary.The irony once again, is that Identity Politics is most likely the prism through which both Hillary and Obama, see America: as a society divided by categories of class, gender, race, ethnicity and sexual preference. His as well as her policies are informed by this view. But Obama skillfully downplays it and tries to portray himself as the candidate for all Americans who want change and are tired of Washington politics. He does not deny that race and gender play a role in politics but prefers not to bring it up since it is "not productive". His strategy has paid off so far, but this topic will certainly be revisited in the national election. Due to his background and life experience, McCain has a very different view based on patriotism and service to the country, on individual responsibility and a common civic culture. He will find a way to turn the notion of Identity Politics against Obama, who, in spite of his unifying message, often speaks about redressing balances and ending injustice.Finally, the closeness of the race and the resilience of these two formidable candidates were again in display towards its end, and led to a new critical stage. The momentum that had carried Obama through the early and middle stages started to weaken. As time went by, more scrutiny brought up the issue of his membership in a radical Black Liberation Theology Church, the (inane) fact that he did not wear a US flag pin on his lapel (a symbol of patriotism that became particularly important after 9-11, when even academics came under no small degree of peer pressure to wear one), and this past week, the conviction by a Chicago federal jury of former fund-raiser and friend, Antoin Retzko.As momentum weakened, and as Clinton seemed to resurrect and come closer to Obama in the delegate count, party rules regarding delegate selection became more important . Because in most primaries there has been an early front-runner, and because the last primary contest that had to be taken all the way to the convention without a presumptive nominee was in 1976, very few party leaders and even fewer journalists are aware of the rules. As they began to play out, we were all submitted to a crash course on these intra-party rules. The Democratic Party has a centralized structure, so all states play by the same rules, and its selection system is based on proportional representation, the most democratic form of representation: within each state, any candidate that reaches a threshold of 15% of votes is allocated delegates proportionally to the vote. This, while it is better for representation, tends to prolong the race and make it closer. While Clinton was recovering and making important gains, Obama still continued to pick up a few delegates here and there, and the media kept its constant drum roll in his favor. Super-delegates were swayed to his side, irrevocably. In contrast, Republicans have a decentralized structure so that each state establishes its own rules, and most choose a winner-take-all selection system. This system, while less democratic and representative, enabled them to have a clear winner by March, with all the advantages that that entails.This year a very peculiar situation arose out of Michigan and Florida, where the state governments scheduled the primaries too early, in breach of the Democratic Party rules, so the Democratic National Committee determined they would not seat their delegates. There were 313 delegates at stake. Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan, and did not campaign in Florida. Clinton won both. At that time nobody thought this issue would become decisive for the nomination, but in such a close race, it certainly did. Last weekend the DNC met with representative so both sides and settled on a formula that allocated delegates to both in a very non-scientific way. It gave each of those delegated half a vote at the convention. While the formula was accepted by both sides, it has been perceived as a bonus for Obama, whose name was not even on the ballot in Michigan and yet he still got delegates allocated. This may still come up again at the National Convention in August. Many factors have thus combined to make Obama the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. In addition to momentum and rules we should also consider the fortunate pairing of Obama to the spirit of the times. The timing for an unconventional candidate could not have been better, and he emerged as the prophetic leader the times demanded. His demeanor, his background, and his non-assuming attitude, all make for the perfect post-modern candidate. The public embraced him and the media anointed him. Now, the question still remains, is his "gift of grace" strong enough to unify America? Can he summon the support he needs to win a national election? Given the complex electoral system based on state votes and an electoral college, and not on the popular vote, can he win the major states and the swing states?Here is where the selection of a vice-president becomes crucial.There is a big movement both from the grassroots and from Clintonites inside the party (yes, there are still some left!) to pressure Obama to pick Hillary as running mate. There are of course, both huge advantages and dismal disadvantages for Obama to ponder in his selection. His first consideration must be to win the election, but he also needs to be able to govern, once he wins.Hillary would bring in those votes that have eluded Obama: mature women, blue collar, rural. Seventy-six of her supporters want her to be Vice-president. She energizes audiences and has won the hearts of all those groups above-mentioned. They feel very strongly about her place in History and demand respect for their candidate. Some may not even come out to vote if Obama's ticket does not include her. She would also help win the big states (she won them all, among them California, Texas and New York) and the swing states, noticeable among them, Ohio, that determined Bush's victory in 04. On the other hand, she does evoke the past in the minds of many voters, and she is now undoubtedly a Washington insider (in fact, her experience has been counted as both an asset and a liability in this sense). She would distort Obama's image as the unconventional candidate, and his message of change and hope may be, if not lost, at least diminished.Insofar as governing, their ideologies and policy positions are perfectly compatible, if not identical, so that would not constitute a problem. She has been studying the intricacies of policy and politics since she was a university student at Wellesley College. She is capable, efficient, convincing and tireless. She is experienced in navigating the meandering straits of policy making, and can muster bipartisan support with her well-reasoned arguments.Another often-mentioned handicap is Bill Clinton himself. With his larger than life personality, can he play prince consort? Or would he be the one that governs behind the scenes, and have his own shadow cabinet, Cheney-style? His reputation has suffered a lot lately, not any more because of that infamous blue dress but because he has not disclosed the list of donors to his library, among which there allegedly are several Middle Eastern governments. There is real vitriol against him, and that is directly transferred to Hillary.For now, both candidates seem to be catching their breaths.Hillary postponed her concession speech for as long as possible, some say to put pressure on Obama to include her in the ticket. Barack, on his part, has quietly named a vetting team for a vice-presidential search. Caroline Kennedy is among its members, as is Eric Holden, President Clinton's former attorney- general. It is headed by Jim Johnson, former Chairman of Fannie Mae, who vetted VPs for John Kerry and Walter Mondale. After exhaustive interviews and background checks, Obama will decide.In the last two months of the campaign, the pundits were prone to repeating that the "math" was against Hillary. This was a gross oversimplification of a race that was characterized by peculiar circumstances and surprises at every turn, and one which was less about math than about intangibles: momentum, media frenzy, rules, emotions, charisma and zeitgeist . In the end, however, it may all very well come down to the "math": if Barack can be convinced that he needs Hillary to win against McCain, then he will pick her as his VP and put the rest of his concerns aside. This will also heal party wounds and bring into the fold her loyal constituencies. But public opinion is fickle, politics is an inexact science and many times emotions can trump the best thought- out and scientifically devised plans. Like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the mountain, Obama may find he has to prove himself all over again and then come out empty-handed in November.In the meantime, and just for good measure, Obama, the "transformative candidate" is now wearing a US flag pin on his lapel.Puerto Ricans do not have the right to vote in national elections due to the "associated state "status, but they can vote in primary elections.This dynamic in the relationship between momentum and rules has been pointed out in a recent article by Jason Bello and Robert Shapiro, published in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. 123 No.1 Spring 08.Super delegates are unpledged party leaders who do not have to declare their presidential preferences until balloting takes place at the ConventionSenior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" James Madison, Federalist No. 51At the end of its annual term, the Supreme Court has proven itself once again as a "temperate and respectable body" of justices by delivering, among others, two landmark decisions. The first one demolishes the infamous Bush legacy of sacrificing the Constitution's article I section 9 Suspension clauses in its bogus "war against terror". The second one represents a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment as the unambiguous individual right to bear arms. The first decision has already inflamed political discussions and will no doubt be at the center of the presidential debates leading to the national election in November. Surprisingly, the second one has proved much less controversial, a sign of changing times in the American discourse.On June 12, 2008, in its ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, the court recognizedhabeas corpus rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Less than a week later, in another landmark ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, it overturned the Washington DC ban on handguns by rejecting the view that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" applied only to the collective service in a "well regulated militia". Instead, it recognized it as an individual right.Since most likely it will fall to the next president to replace some of the Supreme Court judges, Americans should put aside for a moment the media- induced frenzy about the candidates' increasingly fierce competition to get the last sound bite in, the minute-to-minute coverage of exchange of insults and name-calling, and reflect upon the far-reaching ideological consequences that electing one or the other candidate will have on the composition of the Supreme Court.Both Supreme Court rulings were passed by a 5 to 4 vote, showing a deeply divided court over matters that affect the essence of American constitutional system of government and will have long-term consequences for life in America. As it stands now, the court is evenly divided between a conservative and a liberal bloc of four justices each, with Anthony Kennedy delivering the decisive swing vote. Since the future of the court will be decided by the next election, this consideration should be given at least as much weigh as any other in the voters' choice for president.In Boumediene v. Bush, the court delivered a critical decision in the protection of the basic right of any prisoner, including the ones in Guantánamo, to challenge their confinement before a federal judge. This constituted the court's third rejection of the Bush administration's policy on those it detains in its fight against terrorism. The Guantánamo base in Cuba, which has been controlled by the Unites States since the Spanish-American War (1898) under a long-term lease, was considered by this administration to hold a unique legal status that had allowed the Pentagon to avoid review of its activities by federal courts. By declaring unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commission Act of 2006 which denied jurisdiction to the federal courts on habeas corpus petitions by those detainees to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, the Court repudiated the fundamentals of the practice of using Guantánamo as a jail where federal jurisdiction could not reach.The majority decision was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, who often plays the deciding role of "balancer", sometimes siding with the conservative bloc, sometimes with the progressive one. He was joined by the more liberal judges, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, also a Reagan appointee and the most reactionary of the group, who stated, in apocalyptic terms, that the "nation will live to regret" this decision and that more Americans were going to be killed as a result of it. He was joined by George W. Bush's appointees, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.In the second decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, after seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a collective right (only as part of a "well-regulated militia"), the court now ruled that to keep arms at home for self protection is an individual right. This decision was criticized by authorities of the major U.S cities as a setback in their fight against crime and gun violence. However, both presidential candidates Obama and McCain praised the decision as an endorsement of individual rights. Obama emphasized the court's description of the right as "not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe." Although most liberals do not share this view, the Democratic Party's platform in 2004 had already endorsed the Second Amendment as an individual right, as part of the strategy of appealing to the center of the political spectrum in general, and to independent voters in particular, on matters of security. In Senator Obama's case, even if it does not directly contradict any earlier statements, the endorsement surprised some groups, since it does not fit his ideological profile. The media pundits interpreted it as his present strategy to capture the center of the political spectrum, which is probably correct. But it may also be a sign of how accurately Barack takes the pulse of the country. After episodes such as the Virginia Tech massacre that shook the country last year, many law-abiding citizens both young and old, both Republican and Democrat, have increasingly been vocal about the need to own a gun for self-protection.It was now the turn of Antonin Scalia to write the majority decision. A Reagan appointee and, together with Clarence Thomas, the most ideologically conservative of the nine justices, Scalia argued that this is a fundamental constitutional right that takes certain policy choices off the table. While recognizing the problem of handgun violence in the country, Scalia maintained that the "intactness of the Constitution" takes precedence over any other concerns. Ironically, his dissenting opinion on Boumediene v. Bush shows no concern for the wholeness of the Constitution's Suspension clause on habeas corpus, a sign of how human contradiction is not the preserve of presidential candidates only.The dissenting opinion to District of Columbia v. Heller by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford but most of the time votes with the liberal bloc, stated that the majority's decision was based on a "strained and unpersuasive reading of the Constitution", which omits any mention of other purpose (other than a "militia") related to the right to bear arms, such as hunting or personal self-defense. Justices Breyer, Souter and Baden-Ginsburg joined him in the dissenting opinion. Justice Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in this case.The majority's decision has enormous symbolic significance. It overturned a 70-year old decision that had rejected the individual-right interpretation, but one that, in the popular debate was extremely controversial and divided people along ideological and regional lines. But in reality, the narrow way in which the Scalia decision was written gives enough reassurance that other gun-control laws and regulations will not be affected. For example, the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons is upheld, as are the federal ban on possession of machine guns and longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. It has defused rather than inflamed the political debate, and both candidates have endorsed it. It is thus fair to say this was not a major setback for liberal-minded Americans.On the other hand, the Boumediene v. Bush decision is a blow to all those who have made the "war on terror" a centerpiece of their new value system after 9-11. Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) called it "irresponsible and outrageous" and said he would do anything in his power to have it overturned, even if that may take a Constitutional amendment.The decision ignited a serious debate between the two presidential candidates.While Obama praised the Boumediene decision, McCain was outraged by the court's decision to give rights to "unlawful combatants." He sent former Republican candidate and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to represent him on CNN's American morning. Giuliani accused Obama of having a "pre-September 11th mentality". Obama later defended his position saying he clearly understands the threats America faces but emphasized the fact that it is the failed policies of George Bush that cause the US so many problems around the world. He added that McCain clearly would represent a continuation of those policies based on fear and his unwillingness to look toward the future.This year the Supreme Court has delivered an equal amount of victories to each bloc. This balance may shift if some of the judges were to die or retire on the next eight years. Given that the conservatives are the youngest members of the Court (Roberts and Alito, the George W. appointees, are in their 50s, Thomas Clarence is 60 and Scalia is 72), a McCain presidency may have to replace some of the most reliable liberal judges (John Paul Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75) and thus shift the balance in the conservatives' direction. Of course, appointing Supreme Court judges is not an accurate science since, as seen by the decisions above, it is hard to predict, when nominating them, what thinking processes will determine their opinions. The greatest examples of this are Justice Kennedy, who was a Reagan appointee, but often leads the more liberal bloc, as well now retired Sandra Day O'Connor, another Reagan appointee that brought non-ideological balance to the Rehnquist court. At any given time, two opposing forces shape the judges' opinions: the pull of precedent that gives a binding continuity to court decisions, and the push of social change that propels some of the thinking forward, in accordance to the prevailing cultural mood. The final decision is then further shaped by the judges' erudition, idiosyncrasy and ideology. Given the fragile balance present in the Roberts court, and with so many important cases decided by such a narrow margin, the power of the next President to set the future direction of the high court is a vital element that should enter into the voters' considerations next November 4th.Briefly put, the future of the Supreme Court and its ability to make the best decisions so that "reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind", is in the hands of American voters. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
The November 3rd election for governor in Virginia is making headlines, as Obama rallies for Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds at Old Dominion University this week, in a last- ditch effort to close the gap that separates him from Republican candidate Robert McDonnell.Taking place in an "off" year, this race is considered a harbinger of next year's mid-term legislative elections, which in turn are a referendum on the popularity of the President himself. That is why it is being closely monitored by both parties and the media. The so-called "Old Dominion" has occupied a central role in the political history of the country since its early beginnings, through the Civil war and the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Its state government, with the country's oldest legislature, has consistently been ranked first in effectiveness among all 50 states. Virginians are politically savvy and their voting trends are considered of national significance. For example, in 1989 Virginia was the first state to elect an African-American as governor. In the last eight years, while still remaining a red state that voted Republican in national elections, it chose two consecutive Democratic governors. In the historical 2009 election, as a reflection of important demographic changes in the age and diversity of its voters, Virginia became a swing state: Barack Obama carried the state, and today Virginia's two Senate seats are occupied by Democrats. In spite of its importance as a bellwether of national politics, the contest for Governor this year has been a lackluster race, characterized by two candidates with little or no charisma, one of which had a clear advantage from the beginning. Indeed, for Republican Bob Mc Donnell the race has been easier from the start, since he faced no opposition during the primary season. He has therefore had enormous financial support from his party and has used the national debate on government spending to his advantage, capitalizing on public discontent with the lack of tangible results of Obama's economic rescue plan on Main Street America. McDonnell has assailed his opponent aggressively as a tax-and-spend Democrat who, if elected, would run the state finances to the ground regardless of the cost to Virginians. Thanks to his party's financial support he has been able to conduct an overwhelming TV advertising campaign focused on his own and his daughter's military career (a smart decision in a state with large military bases and an even larger defense establishment), his concern for job creation programs and support for small businesses.In contrast to his opponent, Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds had to face a tough three-way primary election this past summer, against Terry McAuliffe, a prominent party man who headed Hillary Clinton's campaign last year, and Brian Moran, a county prosecutor and Virginia House delegate. In spite of running a poor campaign with sparse staff and minimum resources, and of being outspent by at least one of his opponents (McAuliffe) two-to-one, Deeds, who had trailed in the polls for most of the race, finally won by a surprisingly wide margin (50%-26%-24%). The current governor race is a re-match of the Attorney General race of 2005, which was very close and McDonnell finally won by a mere 320 votes. Asked about it, Deeds says that he holds no grudge against his opponent. Deeds, a state senator from Bath County with a strong Southern rural accent, is an honest but rather bumbling character, with tousled hair, a disheveled appearance, and a tendency to give muddled answers to questions. In contrast, Mc Donnell, a fit- looking former Army officer and prosecutor with strong ties to the Christian Right leader Pat Robertson, has run an orderly campaign, focusing mainly on issues that affect Virginians such as transportation and taxes, but also on the spending habits of national figures such as House and Senate leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Indeed, Deeds has complained in interviews that his campaign has been negatively affected by the spending plans of the Democrats inside the Beltway.In contrast to McDonnell's more general approach at attacking everything Democratic, Deeds has based his advertising campaign on more personal attacks, mainly aimed at McDonnell's 1989 master thesis in which he expressed ultra-conservative views on women, homosexuals and abortion. This is a tactic that may backfire as people are tired of negative advertising.In later ads, Deeds has tried to portray his opponent as telling "untruths" and changing his policy position belatedly and dishonestly, only in pursuit of votes (the "flip-flop" strategy). Although still negative, these were more tailored to issues that matter to Virginians. For example, in arguably the most important policy issue the next Governor will face, namely, that of changing the redistricting state laws, McDonnell clearly changed his opinion once he decided to run for governor and now supports reform. 2010 is a Census year, and based on the Census results, state legislatures will engage in the decennial process of re-drawing political borders. In Virginia, the present system is skewed in favor of incumbents. There has been an important movement led by the League of Women Voters to reform the process so that redistricting is carried out by a bipartisan commission and not by the party in power. Deeds supports this reform, as do most Virginians, but McDonnell was against it until this year. Thus, the flip-flop allegation may prove to be a better angle of attack for Deeds than McDonnell's 20-year-old thesis on the role of women in society, although those negative ads have certainly gotten the attention of many young and professional women who will now come out and vote for Deeds.Nonetheless, Deeds faces an up-hill battle for several reasons. Besides the advantage of an early start in fund-raising and campaigning, the whole Republican Party has rallied around McDonnell, who is perceived as a strong candidate that could initiate a much needed turnaround in the fortunes of the party. He has campaigned with McCain and will campaign with Mitt Romney next week. He is more articulate, better organized and a smoother debater than his opponent, and has known how to capitalize on the public discontent with Washington. He has run on a basic platform of job creation and lower taxes to favor small businesses, and would subsidize the urgently needed transportation projects by the novel idea of selling off state-owned liquor stores to private owners. (In Virginia, one can only buy hard liquor and spirits at state-owned dispensers called ABC stores, which are closed on Sundays).In contrast, Deeds, a cerebral policy wonk who does not shy away from intricate ideas and well thought out plans, and who does not speak in sound bites or buzz words, appears less eloquent and not as good a communicator. Although neither is a brilliant debater, during the live debates McDonnell looked more competent, less flustered and less tentative in his responses. In addition, Deeds has not been able to unite the party behind him. Former Virginia Governor Douglass Wilder, the first African-American to occupy that office in the United States, has refused to endorse Deeds in spite of a plea from Obama to do so. The two men disagree on tax policy and gun control. The Democratic candidate has acknowledged he would raise taxes to pay for the transportation projects, while Wilder denounces his plan as reckless, given the state of the economy. On a totally different issue, they are also at odds. Deeds (perhaps because he represents Bath County, a rural district of Virginia) supports the repeal of a state gun-law that restricts the amounts of guns Virginians can purchase. Wilder, as do most Democrats, would like that law to stand. This kind of contradiction –in favor of higher taxes (a fiscally progressive stance) but against gun control (a conservative position) sums up of the kind of candidate Deeds is and explains why he has not gained the support of all Democrats. Ironically, the Republicans have been hailing Wilder's refusal to endorse Deeds on account of his stand on higher taxes, but they avoid mentioning the gun control issue, on which they would be obliged to concur with Deeds.On Tuesday October 27th, exactly one week before the election, President Obama held a rally with Deeds at the Constant Center at Old Dominion University, in front of a crowd of 6,000. This represented a last effort by Obama to rescue Deeds by persuading the youth and African Americans to vote next Tuesday. It was only the second time the President campaigned for Deeds: he had done so once at the beginning of the campaign, in Northern Virginia. Clearly, Obama understands the difficulties his party will face in the 2010 mid-term elections. The man earns his paycheck: this past week alone he has raised money for Democratic congressional candidates in Miami, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut. He then rallied for incumbent Governor Corzine who faces a tough re-election battle in New Jersey and finally for Deeds in Southeastern Virginia. Some say that by spending so much time on the road doing the bidding for his party, the President loses credibility as an agent of change. But no one should underestimate Obama's capacity to handle many issues at the same time. As his meteoric rise in politics proves, he is methodical, disciplined and always focused on a long-term strategy.Obama is quite aware that if his party loses seats in the 2010 elections, his own agenda and indeed, his own chances at re-election in 2012 will be in jeopardy. And as an avid student of political history, he knows that since the 1930s there were only two cases in which the sitting President's party did not lose seats in a mid-term election, so the odds are unmistakably against the Democrats. In the case of Virginia's gubernatorial races, a similar phenomenon has been unfolding: in the last eight consecutive elections, governors have been elected from the party opposite to the one in the White House. To these historical precedents, one must add the state of the economy today, the fact that unemployment is running at 10% and that public opinion is showing high levels of discontent with political parties and politicians in general. (The president is still exempt from this malaise, at least for now, with last week's polls showing his support at 57%). Also, another factor that will weigh in on next year elections is that those independents in traditionally Republican-leaning districts who voted for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008 as a result of the anti-Bush backlash may very easily reverse that trend by voting Republican next year.Very mindful of these challenges, Obama is exerting himself to the utmost to reap at least some early wins that would give new direction to the public mood. In health care reform he seems to be very close to victory. A win in the gubernatorial races would certainly reinforce that trend and give some positive signals for 2010.In Virginia, this election will also test the depth of that transformation from red state to swing state. The main trial for Democrats is to get people energized enough to go to the polls next Tuesday. After eight years out of the Governor's mansion in Richmond, this time Republicans are much more attuned to the gubernatorial race than Democrats, and they are also much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Democrats are about Deeds. All eyes are therefore on Virginia. The last Rasmussen Reports taken a few hours after Obama's visit, found McDonnell at 54% to 41% for Deeds, with 4% undecided. Creigh Deeds has run as the underdog before and recovered in time to win. He may still surprise us again, but this time he needs a miracle.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
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.
