www.marquispullen.com

Politics, Activism, Uplift Philosophy, and Social Conditions: On The History of Blacks in America

2012-02-24T01:42:00.015-05:00

As “Black History Month” is officially coming to a conclusion, I figured it would be good for me to take a pause from my traditional Facebook postings on contemporary American Politics, and instead reflected upon the history of black people in America, their contributions to the development of a more democratic American polity, the significant progress that the nation has made since the mid-1960s with regards to fully incorporating blacks within the American society, as well as the post-1960 short-comings with regards to black social uplift.

A Brief History of Black Political Incorporation

The Enslavement Period: The history of black people in America began when the first ship carrying Africans arrived at the Jamestown Colony in August of 1619. Since the landing in 1619, African-Americans have undergone several, distinct phases of political inclusion/exclusion in the colonies, and subsequently in the United States. The primary phase, of course, is the phase of enslavement. Initially, the Africans brought to the colonies were treated as indentured servants. However, overtime time we see an evolution with regards to the conception of race. In 1623, a white colonist (Robert Sweat) impregnated a black indentured servant, who worked for Lieutenant Sheppard. Sheppard sued Sweat in the colonial court, and the court subsequently ordered Sweat to pay recompense “for diminishing the value of Sheppard’s property.” From this point through the founding and until the conclusion of the American Civil War, we see a “property-centric” conception of black Americans. Thus, the principle struggle for black Americans during the enslavement period was one centered upon the recognition of black humanity, human dignity. More than a century and a half after Re Sweat, the founding fathers framed a document that turned a blind eye to the institution of slavery. Under the principle of non-disclosure, these men protected the institution, which many of them partook in, without staining the document with the term slavery. Article I, Section II – counted slaves as three-fifths persons for apportionment purposes (granting the South greater representation in the House than was warranted given the lack of representation for many of those counted for representational purposes). Article I, Section 9 – protected the slave trade from abolition until at least 1808. Article IV, Section II – was a fugitive slave law, embedded within the constitution. Decades after the Constitutional Convention, the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney argued that “Africans are not constituent members in American society, but a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had no rights or privileges, free or enslaved.”

The Reconstruction Period: After Southern secession and an American Civil War, black Americans had suddenly escaped the death grip of slavery. A progressive era in American political history had dawned, and was referred to as the period of Reconstruction. This era significantly changed the political and social structure of the United States. The 13th Amendment – abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment – defined the nature of citizenship rights, granted due process and equal protection, and the 15th Amendment – prevented states from denying to individuals the right to vote on the basis of race. What we basically get during this era is sweeping changes to the constitutional construction of democracy in America; these changes had made the country far more democratic than the founders would have ever imagined. However, as Dubois states in one of his seminal essays, “ the slave went free, stood a brief moment in the sun, then moved back again towards slavery.” The period of Reconstruction was short-lived. A Southern, backlash movement began shortly following the withdraw of federal troops from te region after the “Electoral Compromise of 1877.” Southern redemption culminated in the regional imposition of Jim Crow.

The Jim Crow Era: The Jim Crow era were the decades of the early 20th century, during which legal discrimination and segregation was the characteristic feature of life in the American South, but also in several cities located throughout the North. Racial separation was embedded in American jurisprudence following the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision, in which the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-1 vote, ruled that “separate but equal” was constitutionally permissible. The characteristic features of Jim Crow were (1) wide scale voter disenfranchisement – through the use of the poll tax, literacy exam, and all-white primaries, (2) pervasive violence – an estimated 4,743 Americans were lynched from 1882-1968 (72.7% were black), and (3) of course, segregation and discrimination.

Black Political Thought from Emancipation to Civil Rights: In understanding black progress, it is important to understand the philosophies, which enabled it. Although many perceive black political thought as a monolith, it is and has always been very diverse. We have had prominent black conservative thinkers, nationalistic thinkers, liberal thinkers, progressive thinkers, and some who serve as a unique blend of more than one. Posted below are the names of prominent black political activists, and quotes, which I feel best expresses their philosophy of social uplift.

Frederick Douglass: I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. (Abolitionist, Suffragist, Liberal, Progressive)

Booker T. Washington: To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land, or who underestimate the importance of preserving friendly relations with the southern white man who is their next door neighbor, I would say: Cast down your bucket where you are. Cast it down, making friends in every manly way of the people of all races, by whom you are surrounded. (Conservative, Accomodationist)

Marcus Garvey: It is the slave spirit of dependence that causes our “so-called leading men” (apes) to seek the shelter, leadership, protection and patronage of the “master” in their organization and so-called advancement work. It is the spirit of feeling secured as good servants of the master, rather than as independents, why our modern Uncle Toms take pride in laboring under alien leadership and becoming surprised at the audacity of the Universal Negro Improvement Association in proclaiming for racial liberty and independence (Conservative and Nationalistic).

W.E.B Dubois: When The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was organized it seemed to us that the subject of "social equality" between races was not one that we need touch officially whatever our private opinions might be. We announced clearly our object as being the political and civil rights of Negroes and this seemed to us a sufficiently clear explanation of our work (Liberal, Integrationist).

Malcolm X: "I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment, which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people."(Conservative, Nationalistic, Social Criticism).

Martin Luther King Jr.: I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice (Liberal, Progressive).

*** freedom, justice, liberty, equality, happiness, progress all emerge as key themes in the oratorical productions of these leaders; it again, goes back to expanding the scope of founding principles to an excluded segment of society through the recognition of humanity

The Civil Rights Era: The Civil Rights Movement was the product of various social, economic, and political changes in the United States. The migration of blacks from the South to the North during the early decades of the 20th century, and their subsequent shift from the sharecropping and agricultural work in the South to the more industrial, and manufacturing sectors in the North resulted in significant upward social mobility for the community. Moreover, we see the displacement of blacks from a region characterized by pervasive black political disempowerment, to one in which they were allowed to participate in the political process. Thus, black migration was, in a sense, a mechanism for political empowerment. Moreover, jurisprudential shifts on the Supreme Court coalesced with the moral integrity of a progressive, executive leader to secure for blacks the ballot, which had long been denied to them in the South. The Civil Rights Act of 1965, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were milestone moments in the history of America, but especially in the history of black Americans.

Increases in Black Political Representation: Black political inclusion has increased greatly since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Prior to the passage of the act, there were not many black elected officials. Now we have more than 10,000 African-Americans in elected positions across the United States. There is substantive black representation across the various branches and levels of government in every region in the United States. The President is black.

The Positives (Education, Employment, Life Expectancy): With each decade in the 20th century coming to a close, blacks made gains in several areas from income to educational attainment to health (in some areas). In 1939, black males earned 46 cents for every dollar earned by white males. However, this had increased to 73 cents for every dollar earned by a white male by 1984. Since the 1960s there has been significant improvements in the life expectancy of black Americans, with the life expectancy for black females surpassing the expectancy rate for white males. Continuing with health, during the 20th century black infant mortality declined substantially. More African-Americans are graduating from college than ever before. More black Americans are entering white color professions and securing positions as physicians, attorneys, and business managers. The black homeownership rate almost doubled in between 1940 and 1993; although the current number still lags other groups. In 1940, black homeownership was 22.8%, however, it had increased to 45.4% in 2006. The current homeownership level is slightly lower due to the recent housing crises and spike in foreclosures throughout the country. There has been a tremendous amount of black social progress since the 1960s.

Family Matters: In 1965, 25% of black families were headed by a single-female. Today 29% of black families are headed by a single-female. 50% of African-Americans have never married, and only 30% of blacks are currently married. Restoring the black family unit is an imperative; it has to be at the top of the list of the must-do list of any viable philosophy of black social uplift. 64% of black children grow up in homes with a father. Empirical studies have shown that such a sub-optimal outcome have negative implications for young girls and boys. Black males who group in single-parent homes that are headed by females show an increased rate of (1) juvenile crime and delinquency, (2) teen fathering, (3) drug abuse, (4) incarceration and (5) dropping out from high school. Studies also show that father absence has negative implications for females as well such as (1) higher levels of unwanted adolescent pregnancy and childbirth, (2) higher levels of marriage without high school education, and (3) the formation of marriages in which both partners do not have a high school diploma.

Mass Incarceration: The United States criminal justice system has undergone a dramatic reorganization of the past three to four decades. New legislation and support for the legislation by the Supreme Court has resulted in the implementation of what some believe are draconian anti-crime policies that have negative implications for the country as a whole, but particular from low-income, communities of color. Back in the 1970s, the levels of incarceration in the United States was equal/on par with that of many other democratic societies. However, by the late 1980s new laws began to take effect and led to sharp increase in the incarceration rates in the United States. In the 1970s only 300,000 Americans were incarcerated. However, today there are more than 2 million Americans behind bars. Much of the increase in the incarceration rate is attributable to arrests and convictions made for those in possession of drugs. There were notable actions taken by the United States Congress, which helped to initiate the rise of the prison-industrial complex. Indeed during the early 1980s, congressional earmarks for drug enforcement increased significantly. From 1980-1984, the amount of FBI anti-drug funding increased from 1980-1984. From 1981 to 1991, the amount of money allocated to the Department of Defense for anti-drug spending increased from $33 million to more than $1 billion [1981-1991]. Also DEA anti-drug funding increased from $86 million to more than $1 billion [1981-1991]. Finally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse earmarks decreased from $274 million [1981-1984]. Thus we see a dramatic shift in priorities. Sharp increases in anti-drug funding, coupled with a significant decrease in the amount of funding for rehabilitation. The shift from rehabilitation to punishment was further highlighted with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Such provisions discriminately impacted African-Americans, because stiffer sentences were issued for those in possession of crack cocaine [disproportionately blacks] than those in possession of powder cocaine [mostly whites]. As a result of these provisions we see sharp increases in the number of all American citizens being incarcerated; however, the percentage of blacks increased greatly. Currently more than 33% of black men are under control of the criminal justice system. In the nation’s capital, three out of four black men can expect to serve some time in prison during their lifetime. Moreover, states like California have implemented three-strike laws, and in Georgia there is a two-strike law, under which 98.4% of those sentenced under the provision were African-American.

Employment: Although we have seen a greater degree of occupational differentiation, and the gradual increase in the proportion of blacks within fields in which they have historically been barred from, we also see a structural unemployment problem that has left so many black Americans locked out of the 21st century labor market. I’m personally a proponent of the Wilsonian thesis, articulated in the Harvard sociologist’s, William Julius Wilson, work titled When Work Disappears. The reconstruction of the United States economy and significant declines in the manufacturing sector displaced many black workers from the decently paying, low skilled jobs, which they had grown quite fond of. Deindustrialization and globalization, and the result outsourcing of low skilled jobs have left many Americans without higher education without a niche in the labor market. Thus, such individuals are forced to either develop their human capital through higher education, or compete for the limited available jobs in the retail and restaurant service industries. The current unemployment rate for black Americans is 13.6%; significantly above the 8.3% national average.

Poverty: 40% of black children are born poor, and 69% of black children who are born poor are likely to remain poor for more than half of their lifetime.

Black Males and Education: 53% of black males do not graduate from high school.

The story on the black experience in the United States [black history] is one that is best characterized as a story of triumph and struggle. It is a history that is filled with many transformative moments, both regressive and progressive in nature. Many of the remembered black political activists were democratic thinkers and social critics, who consistently tried to figure out how to expand the restricted, democratic visions of the founding fathers. The great Frederick Douglass once stated, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” As a prominent abolitionist and, after the Civil War, suffragist, Douglass continued to press for the political empowerment of blacks through the right of suffrage. A small, black woman from the state of Mississippi, Ida B. Wells, launched an international anti-lynching crusade, when many politicians and national leaders remained silent about the practice. It was out of the vision of W.E.B Dubois, that the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People was founded. It’s well-trained legal defense team, was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston at one point and Thurgood Marshall during another, secured scores of legal victories that collectively lifted the veil, which was so vividly described by Dubois in "The Souls of Black Folks (1903)." It was Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, Shirley Chisholm’s courage, and Jessie Jackson’s determination that set the stage for an Obama candidacy [and ultimate victory]. What is so remarkable about the knowledge of self, and the acknowledgment of history is that there are so many wonderful lessons to be learned. The political activism of Douglass, Wells, Dubois, and King Jr. are characterized by a high degree of stubborn-persistence in the face of overwhelming odds and obstacles. From the battle over post-Emancipation suffrage, to the desire to eradicate - in the United States - that strange fruit, to a more forceful enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and voter rights provisions, these leaders faced a substantial amount of pro-status quo opposition; they never gave up. Faith – which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence for things not yet seen – was a key component of black uplift thinking from slavery up until the Civil Rights era. It was a historical source of progress for blacks in America.

*** As a black liberal in America, there are times in which I overemphasize the structural impediments to black social mobility [although such barriers are very real and severe, many economically grounded, but some racially grounded as well], and acknowledge (only privately) the ways in which non-normative behaviors limit the prospect of the collective uplift of the group. I agree with many black conservatives, when they suggest that this tendency has the potential to weaken the ability of the group to function as stubbornly persistent, faith-filled individuals [induces the victim mentality] as they seek to overcome whatever structural barriers they may face. I think it may be time for a new philosophy of social uplift. One that combines the successful components of social uplift thinking of the past [both conservative and progressive], with news one to in order to (1) increase upward mobility through educational attainment, (2) facilitate the restoration of the traditional black family unit, (3) prepare displaced and prospective black workers for the 21st century economy, (4) promote positive psychological, physical and mental wellbeing, and (5) bring about an end to the revolving door phenomenon – which has come to define the interactions that so many black men have with the criminal justice system.

Summary of Chapter Three: The Electoral Competition Hypothesis

2012-02-21T23:22:00.002-05:00

So I have divided the 11 ex-confederate states into three groups based on the level of black office-holding during Reconstruction (1870-1876). Primary States - SC, MS, LA, AL [50+ black state legislators] Secondary States - VA, GA, FL, NC [30-49 black state legislators] Tertiary States - TX, AK, TN [less than 30 black state legislators]

I use the primary, secondary, and tertiary designations to signify a hierarchy in electoral competition [for the Democratic Party] following the Reconstruction era. Within the primary states the Democratic Party faced the greatest degree of opposition, within the tertiary states the Democratic Party faced the least amount of competition.

The reality of electoral competition becomes apparent when one takes into account the average % of majority black counties at each level. Primary States - 52.75% Secondary States - 36.25% Tertiary States - 9.33%

Hypothesis: The degree of electoral competition will determine (1) whether or not an ex-confederate state adopts a poll tax and/or literacy exam and (2) when an ex-confederate state adopts exclusionary political practices; primary states will restrict suffrage first, secondary states next, and tertiary states last.

IV: (1) Primary Status, (2) Secondary Status, and (3) Tertiary Status

DV-1: Percent adopting poll tax [at each status]
DV-2: Percent adopting literacy exam [at each status]
DV-3: Average # of years to enact poll tax [after 1877]
DV-4: Average # of years to enact literacy exam [after 1877]

Primary States: 100% enacted poll tax [19-years], 100% enacted literacy exam [19-years]

Secondary States: 100% enacted poll tax [23-years], 75% enacted literacy exam [27-years]

Tertiary States: 66.7% enacted poll tax [27.5 years], 0% enacted literacy exam [still counting]

Finding [numerically presented above]: The primary states [those in which the Democratic Party faced the greatest threat from black, Republican voters] were more likely and more quickly to enact suffrage restriction than those states that face a lesser threat from the presence of blacks within the electorate.

Conclusion: There is some support for my electoral competition hypothesis for black political exclusion in the post-Reconstruction era. However, lawmakers do not operate within a vacuum. Federal judges often review state level legislation and constitutional reforms to determine whether or not they are consistent with the constitution. I must then proceed with an investigation of the jurisprudence of the federal courts to determine the extent to which it undermined or facilitated the post-Reconstruction political incorporation of blacks.

Undermining Democracy: Electoral Competition and the Politics of Suffrage Restriction

2012-02-20T18:35:00.000-05:00

excerpt from thesis (Pullen, 2012, pg. 27-28)

"The persistent clash between the Democratic and Republican Party has defined electoral competition in the United States since the Lincoln era. These political parties have consistently fought for domination over the local, state, and national systems of government. The Reconstruction era reforms, and the lasting impact of such reforms became an integral aspect of party competition after the American Civil War. The inception of substantive black voting, particularly in the Southern region of the United States, challenged traditional, Democratic Party hegemony. Electoral expansion and inclusion undermined the strength of the Democratic Party, in a way that many within the party’s leadership and rank-and-file could not tolerate. Black voting and office-holding, in a sense, hastened the returned to African-Americans' political exclusion. Those individuals who were most susceptible to political misfortune, as a result of black voting in the post-Reconstruction period, exacerbated lingering notions of race-based distinctions regarding fitness for suffrage. In this chapter of the thesis, I develop the electoral competition perspective for black political exclusion. At the core of this perspective is the view that that black disenfranchisement after Reconstruction was caused, in part, by the degree to which African-Americans’ political participation produced election returns that were inconsistent with the pre-inclusion returns. Essentially, suffrage contraction in the South was a process orchestrated by the Democratic Party to fend of an emergent Republican Party in the region; a political party whose base of support was derived from (1) the concentration of blacks in the South, and (2) the overwhelming partisan identification of black, male voters with the Republican Party. The central argument of this chapter of the thesis is that partisanship, specifically the pursuit of an electoral advantage, was a key component of the late 19th century and early 20th century politics of suffrage restriction. The consequence of this partisan politic, as will be shown in this chapter, was the reversion of many blacks back to a status of political and electoral exclusion (page 27-28)."

**** The politics of suffrage contraction at the close of the 19th century is not very different from the suffrage contraction policies that we see today. Of course, the poll tax, literacy exam, and exclusionary primary are no longer legal; however, vestiges of old age suffrage restriction combine with more modern techniques to produce a similar, yet less potent, contraction in electoral participation. 3.9 million Americans are currently or permanently disenfranchised. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Virginia disenfranchise almost 4% of their adult population. Florida and Texas each disenfranchise more than 600,000 voters. Alabama, California, and Virginia disenfranchise more than 250,000 voters each. Thirteen percent of African-American men [1.4 million] do not have the right to vote. In two states, half of all black men are disenfranchised. In eight additional states, one in four black males do not have the right to vote. In Alabama and Florida, 31% of black males are permanently disenfranchised. In Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming, more than 1 in 4 black males are permanently disenfranchised. The numbers are 1 in 5 for the states of Delaware and Texas. Estimates suggest that if this pattern of ex-offender, democratic exclusion continues more than 40% of the black male population in disenfranchising states could be without the right to vote. In almost every state we see the systematic "felonization" of the black male population, and the subsequent denial of the right to vote. Many of these ex-felons, 27% at the state level, receive no jail time upon conviction. We must ask ourselves, is there such a crime that warrants no jail time, but is worthy of the stripping of a fundamental right of citizenship, the right that preserves all other rights? Studies have proven the felony disenfranchisement does not deter criminal behavior. So why do state legislators continue to support felony disenfranchisement? What is the purpose of this anti-democratic, electoral contraction? It goes back to the electoral competition perspective of political exclusion, and the pursuit of partisan advantage; just look at the states that disenfranchise the most felons. Black belt states such as Alabama, Virginia and Georgia, and key national battleground states such as Florida, Iowa, and New Mexico have disenfranchised such a large segment of their population, specifically the black male population, that the democratic process is undermined. There would not have been a Bush presidency, had it not been for felony disenfranchisement. The balance of power in many states would be markedly different if felony disenfranchisement is declared unconstitutional, or if legislators decide that it is time to subordinate partisan politics to the goal of achieving a more inclusive and democratic polity. But hey, anybody who has read Mayhew knows that the ultimate goal of the politician is to get reelected. Black belt conservatives and Republican governors favor electoral contraction because it reduces competition and increases the likelihood that they or someone of their political persuasion wins. Partisan politics supersedes democratic governance, and representative democracy becomes much less representative. Bold congressional action and judicial reinforcement during the 1960s and the decades that followed brought about the long overdue, death of traditional methods of political exclusion. A similar effort may be required with regards to securing the vote for those whom have done the crime and the time, but no longer have the right to vote. Time. Time. Time. We must wait for the next phase in the evolution of voting rights jurisprudence.

The Deficit Divide: Conservatives Blame Obama, But is the President Really At Fault?

2012-02-04T18:10:00.002-05:00

Many conservatives in the United States criticize President Obama for the national deficit and debt woes. According to these conservatives, the reckless spending of a liberal, Democratic President has resulted in unacceptably high levels of borrowing and deficit spending. The health care overhaul and the economic stimulus, according to these critics, have placed the nation in economic disarray. When one analyzes the extent to which the United States deficit has grown since Obama assumed office in January of 2009, one might be persuaded by the conservative notion of “Obama’s Debt Crisis.” However, when one actually takes into account the policies and programs that contribute to the United States debt problem, it becomes apparent that Obama’s policies have not contributed much to the budget deficits that are being accrued under the Obama Administration.

A graphical depiction [see above] posted a few months ago on Ezra Klein’s weblog with the Washington Post, shows the cost of new policies under President Obama and former President Bush. What we see is that Bush’s deficits were largely the product of policies put into place by his own administration. The gross public deficit increased by $5.7 trillion under former President Bush. Bush’s new policies accounted for $5.07 trillion, or 89% of that budget deficit growth in during his two terms in office. If one looks at the chart above, one sees that the new policies put into place by President Obama are expected to contribute 1.44 T to the nation’s public debt for the F.Y 2009-2017. This is far less than the trillions that have already been added. If Obama's policies are responsible for only 1.44 T, whose policies are responsible for the rest?

Many conservatives attribute the F.Y 2009 budget deficit to President Obama, but the budget was actually signed into law by President Bush in September of 2008. The national debt increased 1.9 T in that year alone. Bush was not in office, however he signed off on the spending that took place for most of that year. The most significant contributors to that 2009 budget deficit were (1) lost revenue due to the economic recession, (2) the TARP bailout, (3) increases in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security [Medicare Part D], and (4) the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In assessing the reasons why we are not experiencing a budget surplus at the moment, as projected, the Pew Research center compiled estimates of the contributing factors to the 10.4 trillion dollars in public debt accumulated under the Bush and Obama Administrations; the CBO projected a $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011. The major contributors were [I’m going partisan]:

Revenue Declines Due to the Recession [which began under Bush] [28%]
Defense Spending Increases [Obama has cut defense spending] [15%]
Bush’s tax cuts [Obama did not support them, GOP forced him to extend them] [13%]
Obama’s stimulus [Obama’s policy] [6%] 10 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, stimulus turned around the economy
Medicare Part D [Bush’s program] [2%]
The 2010 Tax Legislation [again, GOP forced extension of Bush-era tax cuts]

Image Above: graphical illustration of specific policies and their contribution to the public debt that was accumulated from 2001 until 2011.

So it is true that the United States has been experiencing record high budget deficits under President Obama. However, Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, Medicare Part D, Bush-era tax cuts, and lost revenue due to the economic recession comprise an overwhelming proportion of recent United States budget deficits; these policies and programs were not put into place by President Obama. So in assessing the President's contributions to the nation's public debtr, we must remain cognizant of the costly programs and policies that the President has inherited from his predecessor, and we must be willing to undue some of these policies in order to resolve our deficit/debt crisis.

Rachel Maddow: On Romney, the Economy, and Concern About Poor People

2012-02-04T02:27:00.001-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jill Stein Delivers the "People's State of the Union"

2012-02-01T23:37:00.000-05:00

People's State of the Union: A Green New Deal for America from Jill Stein for President on Vimeo.

Quick Thoughts: Gingrich Trounces Romney in South Carolina Primary, Can He Keep Up the Momentum?

2012-01-21T23:32:00.001-05:00

The results from the South Carolina GOP primary are in and Newt Gingrich is the winner by a wide margin. With all the precincts reporting, Gingrich is expected to have defeated Romney by approximately 12-percentage points. Gingrich garnered a little over 40% of the vote in the South Carolina Primary, will Romney came in at a distant second with just under 29% of the vote. Rick Santorum finished in third with 17% of the vote, and Paul came in fourth with 13% of the vote. After two fourth-place finishes, this victory in South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich the type of victory that he needed to prolong the Republican Primary fight against Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney’s loss in South Carolina foreshadows a challenge that he might face as he continues to compete for the Republican Party's nomination. Conservative voters favored Gingrich over Romney in South Carolina's GOP primary by a margin of 48% to 19%. There will be many more primary races, particularly in the American South, in which the conservative, evangelical vote will play a decisive role in determining which candidate will come out victorious; if Romney is unable to increase his support within the Republican Party, by reaching out to the more conservative-wing of the party, he may find himself in a tough, close battle for the Republican nomination. At the moment, Gingrich has the support of Republican conservatives; however, Gingrich does not fair well against President Obama in national polls. Posted below is a map of the South Carolina primary results. As one can see, Gingrich dominated almost the entire state, by wide margins. The Romney camp is going to have to figure out how it can appeal to the more conservative, Southern base of the GOP; doing so will require him to (1) convince conservatives that he is one of them, and (2) continue to communicate to Republican voters that he is the only one in the race that has a legitimate shout at defeating President Obama in November.

Quick Thoughts: Perry Drops Out of the Race, Endorses Newt Gingrich

2012-01-20T10:49:00.004-05:00

And then there were four. The Republican Primary field has gotten much smaller now that John Huntsman and Rick Perry have decided to dropout of the race. Huntsman followed his campaign exit with a full endorsement of Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry did the same for Newt Gingrich. Despite these endorsements both Romney and Gingrich have been fending of attacks. Romney has had to deal with the notion that the reason he has not yet released previous tax returns is because he has something to hide. Gingrich has had to respond to his ex-wife’s claim that he presented her with the proposition of becoming a part of an “open marriage” prior to their divorce. Although these issues may seem apolitical on the surface, I think that are certainly relevant. The personal characteristics of presidential candidates such as how they treat their loved ones and how they make their money is simply fair game; they speak to the person that the eventual nominee would be should the actually defeat President Obama in November. As the field gets smaller, we are getting closer and closer to that point where one candidate will be able to go toe-to-toe with Romney in this nominating contest. Gingrich called for Santorum to dropout; however, in last night’s debate Santorum pointed out that he has placed higher than Gingrich in the last two contests, and that Gingrich’s contention was foolish. It’s a four-man race. Ron Paul is doing pretty well; although no one really expects him to be the nominee. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Romney.

Is Obama Really a Job-Losing President

2012-01-17T10:53:00.000-05:00

[reposted from Facebook Status] 4.4 million jobs were lost during Bush's final year in office. During the first four months of Obama's presidency the nation lost an additional 2.5 million jobs [do we blame Obama's policies for this job loss?]. We lost 800,000 jobs in November of 2008, more than 600,000 jobs in December of 2008, and an additional 800,000 jobs in January of 2009 [Obama assumed office January 20th?]. Since Obama took office we have seen consistent reductions in monthly job loss. Since November of 2009 [25 month-period] we have consistently netted jobs or experienced job loss at a much smaller rate than at the end of 2008. 7 months of job loss, and 18 months of job creation. 15-consecutive months of job creation. 200 thousand jobs created last month. sn# if a team is down by 20 and a bench player comes in for the final minutes and the team loses by 25, we don't blame the bench player; conversely if because of that players actions, a shooters touch perhaps, the team loses by 8, then one might suggest that the player made a horrible situation better. Still not good, but better! That's what Obama has done.

Quick Thought: Gingrich Ad Hits Romney Hard

2012-01-13T23:47:00.003-05:00

This is a nice, hard-hitting ad. I'm kinda hoping that it resonates with the conservative voters in South Carolina. The longer this primary fight draws out, the less work Obama will have to do to weaken the eventual nominee. "Massachusetts Moderate" "Vulture Capitalist" "Will Say Anything to Get Elected" "Corporate Raider" and the list goes on.

Quick Thoughts: Romney Edges Santorum By 8 Votes!

2012-01-04T23:34:00.002-05:00

Months ago, no one would have imagined that Rick Santorum would be the GOP candidate that finished amongst the top in the Iowa Caucus. For the past few months we have seen several of the GOP candidates rise and fall as the main alternative to the former Governor from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney; however, it was not until the last week of December that Santorum began to surge in the polls and pundits began to believe that he had a chance to win. Santorum was definitely helped in Iowa by his decision to visit each county in Iowa, and his decision to send surrogates to each precinct on caucus night. One must never underestimate the power of retail politics, connecting with the voters on a more personal level than nationally televised debates and local media ads. Santorum also benefited from Romney’s initial decision to downplay Iowa; Romney did not make many substantive visits into Iowa until late polls showed that he had a legitimate shot at winning the caucus. It is clear that yesterday night there were two victories. The first was for Romney and the GOP establishment that supports his candidacy. The second was for the conservative-wing of the Republican Party; Santorum came in a close second, and Ron Paul came in third. It is possible that Santorum may be able to leverage his victory in Iowa in such a way that he becomes the lone, conservative alternative to Romney. However, there is no indication that Gingrich or Perry will drop out of the race. As of now, Romney is still the front-runner, however, many Republican voters cannot support his candidacy. If the field winnows down early enough, there may be enough time for a candidate to give Romney a run for his money for the nomination; as of now, it looks like that candidate may be Rick Santorum. Romney won the first battle, but the war for the GOP’s nomination goes on.

The Iowa Caucus: Who is Going to Win and Does it Even Matter?

2012-01-03T15:52:00.002-05:00

The results of the 2008 Iowa Caucus had a distinct set of implications for the two major parties in the American political system. For the Democratic Party, President Obama’s victory in a predominantly white state was indicative of his national electoral viability. For the Republican Party, however, Governor Huckabee’s victory in the 2008 Iowa Caucus was indicative of the conservative and evangelical leanings of the Republican Party’s Iowa Caucus voters; his victory did not propel him to his party’s nomination, which was eventually won by the moderate Senator from Arizona. I predict that Rick Santorum will win the Iowa Caucus tonight. Mitt Romney will probably come in a close second with Ron Paul finishing in third place; I do not think that there will be significant differences, percentage wise, between the top three winners. However, you never know with 41% of prospective caucus goers suggesting that they are open to switching their preferences in this caucus.

[Posted above] is a map of the results from the 2008 Republican Party’s Iowa Caucus. What the map shows is that during the 2008 race, Romney had a stronghold in Eastern Iowa, especially around the Cedar Rapids and Davenport areas. Also, Romney did well in some of the Western areas of the state of Iowa. I think that what is particularly interesting about the map and the results from 2008 is the extent to which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee was able to singularly command the support of the electorate within the counties of Central Iowa; the region in the state where Republican voters tend to be most conservative.

There are a lot of conservative candidates in the field, so I believe that Romney is taking solace in the fact that the more conservative candidates may potentially split the vote in Central Iowa, where Huckabee was able to dominate four years ago. I think that the vote in Central Iowa is going to be divided amongst Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum; however, I think that Rick Santorum is surging at just the right time that he may be able to gain the support of a disproportionate amount of social and cultural conservatives in the central region of the state. In 2008, Huckabee defeated Romney amongst very conservative voters [who were 45% of the electorate] 35% to 23%, while Romney defeated Huckabee amongst moderates by only 1 percentage point, 30% to 29%. If the turnout amongst very conservative voters increases this time around, and it turns out that Rick Santorum has managed to get them to back his candidacy, he should definitely do well tonight. It is also important to note than in 2008, 60% of all Iowa Caucus voters considered themselves to be evangelical Christians. Huckabee defeated Romney 46% to 19% amongst evangelicals. If Romney has failed to make inroads with conservative Christians in the state, it is going to be hard to imagine him acquiring the 30% or so of the vote that is necessary for him to come in first pace, and it is going to put Paul and Santorum in a position where either one of them can win in Iowa.

In 2008 Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus with 34.4% of the vote, a little over 9-percentage points higher than Romney [25.2%]. The latest Des Moines Register Poll, has Romney polling at 24%, Paul at 22%, and Santorum at 15%; however, it is just a poll. Gingrich, who has decline greatly in the polls, has been hitting Romney hard, claiming that he is a “Massachusetts Moderate” masquerading as a conservative Republican. If the conservatives in Iowa do not buy Romney’s message, are turned of by the Romney-aligned Super Pac’s negative ads, and somewhat coalesce behind Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, Romney could lose in Iowa tonight. The race should be close. There are only a few hours until Iowans start caucusing; the results should be intriguing. I think that we must be cognizant of the fact that Iowa is only one of dozens of states that are going to have a meaningful impact in choosing the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee. Although its degree of influence should be great in that it can give a candidate momentum going into the subsequent early nominating contests in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, Iowa is going to award a relatively small amount of the delegates necessary to win the GOP’s nominating contest. If Rick Santorum wins in Iowa, where does he go from there? Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus in 1988, doubling George H.W Bush’s vote total [40,804 versus 20,237], but Bush Sr. went on to win the nomination, and then defeated Michael Dukakis in the general election held late that year. Twenty years later, Huckabee won with 40,954 votes [34%]; McCain came in fourth with 13%. However, McCain bounced back by winning New Hampshire with 37% of the vote and eventually received the Republican nomination. So Iowa does not necessarily have a track record in picking the Republican nominee; it is simply the first in the nation caucus with a lot of media hype. Kingmaker? Not so much.

Countdown to Iowa: Latest Polling Data Has Romney, Gingrich, and Paul in Front

2011-12-30T15:21:00.004-05:00

Iowa: Iowa is the first in the nation caucus; the caucus, which will kick off the Republican Party’s nominating contest. On January 3rd thousands of Iowa residents will show up at caucus stations across the state of Iowa to demonstrate their support for one of the many political contenders for the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination. Although several of the candidates remaining in the GOP’s primary field have found themselves ranked amongst the top tier of candidates in Iowa, the latest trend shows Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul as the three frontrunners in the Iowa caucus. Real Clear Politics’ average of five recent polls has Romney and Paul in a statistical tie [21.6 versus 21.2] for first, with Santorum and Gingrich in a distant statistical tie [14.0 each] for third place. Paul’s and Santorum’s recent surges have come at the heel of a concerted effort to turn down the momentum that the Gingrich campaign has been enjoying since Herman Cain’s exit from the race in early December. We are just days away from the Iowa Caucus, and it will be interesting to see if the latest polling numbers hold for the actual election. If Mitt Romney can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he may be well on his way to securing the Republican Party’s nomination before the President issues his “State of the Union Address” at the end of January. However, if Gingrich or some other “anyone but Romney candidate” can make a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and if Newt wins big in South Carolina and Florida, the Republican Party nomination fight may live to see a “Super Tuesday.”

New Hampshire: New Hampshire has been the state that Mitt Romney and John Huntsman have been making an aggressive play for. A SuperPac ran by Huntsman’s father recently made a $650,000 ad buy in the state. New Hampshire has literally become the second home for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. The polls have Romney as the solid frontrunner in the New Hampshire primary contest. A CNN poll has Romney in first with 44%, Paul in second with 17%, and Gingrich with 16%. Huntsman’s ad buy was ineffective; he is polling fourth with 9%. Real Clear Politics’ average of four recent polls produces the same order, with the same magnitude of support; Romney wins big, Paul and Gingrich are competing for the second place finish, and Huntsman comes in at a distant fourth.

South Carolina and Florida: The South Carolina primary is going to be interesting for a number of reasons. First, it is the first state in the American South to hold a primary contest. Second, there appears to be an interesting dynamic this year in the state. The party establishment has thrown its support behind Mitt Romney, who was recently endorsed by the governor of the state, Nikki Haley. However, the Republican Primary voters have expressed their support for Newt Gingrich. The latest polling for the South Carolina Primary has Gingrich way ahead of the competition with support from 37% of prospective Republican Primary goers in South Carolina. Romney is polling second at 21%, and Paul is a distant third at 8.7%. Recent Florida polling produces a similar order of victory. Gingrich = 38.3%; Romney = 26.3%; and Paul = 5.7% (this is from an average of three polls)

Recent polling data for the first four contests in the Republican Party's nominating process indicates that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich may be in it for the long haul. However, impressive victories by Romney in the first two contests [Iowa and New Hampshire] may further consolidate the GOP establishment behind his candidacy, and may do so in a way that makes Romney more competitive in South Carolina and Florida. If Gingrich cannot win, and impressively so, in the South Carolina and Florida contests, Romney is going to secure the nomination early during the primary process.

Economic Visions: GOP Frontrunners versus the Obama Administration on the Economy

2011-12-28T15:22:00.003-05:00

If you had to pick today, for whom would you cast your vote in the Republican campaign for the nomination for president of the United States?

I am not particularly impressed by any of the candidates that the Republican Party has to offer. It is kind of sad that after four years of profound opposition to the Obama Administration, the GOP has been unable to put forth a presidential nominee, who can offer up viable and sound alternatives to the policy preferences of the Obama Administration. It is OK to disagree with the President and to suggest that President Obama’s policies have not been the best ones for moving this nation forward; however, one must articulate a viable, alternative set of policies to the President. I think the more appropriate question(s) is not whom one will vote for, but why would one vote for the candidate that one has in mind? What types of policies are they advocating, and how will such policies improve the nation, especially the national economy?

Let’s take a quick look at the economic proposals of the frontrunners, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, since the 2012 race will be won on the economic front.

Newt Gingrich: One of the most pressing issues that the nation currently faces is its budget deficit. We are literally days away from passing the point at which this nation will have accumulated more than 15 trillion dollars in debt. The problem is that Newt Gingrich’s economic proposals are ones that impede the ability of this nation to generate the type of revenues necessary to prevent the further swelling of our national debt. First, Newt Gingrich supports a permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which non-partisan think tanks such as the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities have proven contributes significantly to the annual budget deficit, and would by 2019, be the single largest contributor to the nation’s public debt. Moreover, Newt Gingrich proposes an additional revenue slashing policy in the form of a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate; he would like to slash the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Gingrich also supports a flat tax of 15%, again another revenue decreasing policy proposal. In addition to Gingrich’s revenue-stripping policies, the presidential candidate has come out in favor of the repeal of Dodd-Frank, a financial regulatory bill that was crafted with the intentions of preventing another financial crisis. What’s wrong with a bill that restricts banks' activities, provides much tougher scrutiny than that which allowed the recent financial crisis, and establishes a consumer protection agency to prevent the American people from the type of predatory lending, which helped induce the economic crisis. On top of this, Gingrich has announced that he is in favor of a balanced-budget amendment. Can you imagine the implications of revenue slashing legislation coupled with the requirement of spending less than the amount of tax revenue collected? What essential programs will we cut? Newt’s economic proposals may sound good to conservatives, but the practical consequences of his economic proposals equal bad governance.

Mitt Romney: Romney’s tax policy has been reduced to a three-word slogan “fairer, flatter, and simpler.” Mitt Romney’s tax policy is more fiscally prudent, and revenue-neutral than Newt Gingrich’s policy proposal. Romney’s tax proposal consists of maintaining the current personal income tax rates and tax rates for interests, dividends, and capital gains. Romney also proposes an elimination of the death tax, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate, but only to 25%. The fundamental assumption made by candidate Romney regarding economic recovery and job creation in the United States is that reduced taxes, spending cuts, and the elimination of regulation and government programs can be more beneficial than harmful.

The 2012 Election is going to be one in which two individuals, presidential candidates, will put forth an economic agenda and plan for putting Americans back to work, and one will be the winner. While the two Republican Party frontrunners have pieced together a nice, conservative sounding policy platform, they must take a step back and consider the economic and budgetary implications of these policies. The current economic predicament demands strong countercyclical economic policy; a type of policy designed to mitigate the negative effects of this economic downturn. With unemployment high and a slow economic recovery, and with a government in possession of the tools necessary to prompt a more forceful economic recovery, one must wonder whether or not government should use the tools at its disposal to help lessen the burden that Americans are currently facing. According to Michael Feroli, the chief U.S economist for JP Morgan & Chase, “a reduction in government spending, the end of the payroll-tax holiday and an expiration of extended unemployment benefits would cut GDP by 1.7 percent in 2012.” What we need is prudent economic policy, not political economic policy. The GOP candidates are just not giving us what we need.

The GOP has failed to put forth “a presidential” presidential candidate for the nation’s highest office. With less than a week before the Iowa Caucus, the field is essentially locked. I could not vote for any of the candidates. However, I think that Mitt Romney has the best chance at defeating Obama in November. If Romney can secure the nomination, and puts the junior U.S Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, on the bottom of the ticket, this would put into play the Latino vote in a way that may prove favorable for the Republican Party’s electoral prospects. Remember, President Obama received the support of nearly two out of three Latino voters in 2008. The GOP is already expected to make significant gains amongst independent voters, and blue-collar white voters. Moreover, turnout amongst the youth-vote and the black vote, two primarily Democratic constituencies, may not be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008 because of dwindling enthusiasm for the President. So there are ways that the GOP can win some of the key battleground states such as PA, OH, FL, VA, NC, CO and secure the Presidency [fingers cross that it does not]; I think that the GOP chances decreases significantly if Republican Primary voters should nominate Newt Gingrich. The latest RealClearPolitics average of general election polls have President Obama defeating Romney, 47.1 to 44.6 and Gingrich by a much larger margin, 50.2 to 41.3.

Quick Thoughts: Partisan Advantage and the Voter Identification Bill in North Carolina

2011-12-15T22:13:00.003-05:00

In 2010, the Republican Party assumed controlled of both chambers of the North Carolina state legislature for the first time in more than a century. Since assuming control of the state legislative body, the GOP has pursued a rather controversial and conservative agenda aimed at significantly scaling back education and social spending in the state. In addition, the GOP has decide to revise the state voting eligibility requirements, and would like to add a photo ID provision to the state’s list of prerequisites for voting.

When one considers the implications of the North Carolina’s GOP decision to pass into law a photo identification requirement for voting, it makes and does not make sense. How is this so? How can it be both? It makes sense when one considers that fact that 508,000 registered Democratic voters lack the proper photo identification necessary for voting, compared to only 277,000 registered Republican voters; such a bill would confer upon the state’s GOP a sizable electoral advantage. This type of electorate engineer would purge far more Democrats from the rolls than Republicans. Viewed from the perspective that politicians are self-interested, rational actors whose chief motivation is occupational preservation via reelection, the GOP’s desire to pass photo identification bill makes sense. However, viewed from the perspective that the United States is done a great disservice when its citizens are unfairly subjected to voting prerequisites that are crafted to increase the electoral advantage of a particular political party, the policy does not make much sense. Nearly 700,000 to 1,000,000 North Carolina residents, almost 16% of all registered voters will be at risk of being disenfranchised in the 2012 race if the GOP manages to overturn Governor Bev Purdue’s gubernatorial veto of their voter identification bill. The fact that a major political party supports a policy that has such negative implications is beyond me, but the politics of suffrage contraction has been a rather enduring aspect of politics in America since its inception. Politics is a dirty game; one that needs much cleaning.

What’s the Matter with Voter Identification Laws?

2011-12-14T21:43:00.002-05:00

There has been a recent push by many Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where a Republican Party representative also controls the governorship to change voting eligibility requirements. In such states, many of those serving in the state legislative bodies have decided that voters should be required to show proper photo identification prior to casting a ballot. On the surface one may ask, what is the controversy? Everyone who legally operates a motor vehicle has the proper materials necessary for voting in such states. The problem is that not everyone drives, and every do not have the type of photo identification that many of these states require. In fact, some studies have shown that as much as 12% of the voting-age population may lack the government-issued photo identification required by many states with new photo identification. Estimates are higher for particular communities including (1) the elderly, (2) ethnic minorities, (3) low-income voters, and (4) high school and college students.

The state of Indiana was at the forefront of voter ID challenges. A 2006 publication, titled “Citizen Without Proof,” examined the implications of the state’s imposition of a photo ID requirement for voting. The findings are indicative of the disparate impact that such laws have on prospective voters in the state. Subsequent analyses have confirmed the findings in the initial report, that photo ID laws can have a suppressive effect on the voting levels of many demographic groups. One of such studies, a survey, found that 12% of residents lacked an Indiana driver’s license or an alternative state issued identification card. A 2009 survey found that while 81.4% of white voting-eligible adults contained a driver’s license, only 55.2% of black eligible adults had a driver’s license. A national survey found that 95% of the voting-aged population had a driver’s license, but that only 16% of those lacked one that was current and non-expired. Thus, the potential for photo identification requirements for voting to act as a mechanism for suffrage restriction is apparent. Regardless of the intentions of state lawmakers when they decided to enact such policies, one must be cognizant of the implications of the decisions to go forth with these laws. One must ask the question of whether or not the costs of voter ID laws outweigh the benefit. In a Democratic society individuals should not be unfairly denied ballot access simply because of an inability to produce a government-issued ID. There are other ways to prevent voter fraud, which although argued, is not a significant problem in American electoral politics.

Studies have demonstrated the suppressive nature of many of the voting identification laws recent passed by states. Moreover, such studies have illustrated the potentially partisan, and demographical impact that these laws have. The laws are most likely to exclude eligible voters from elderly, minority, and college communities; thus, such laws are most likely to influence traditionally democratic voters. The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, recently spoke out against these news laws, which are being passed in many states. According to Eric Holder:

“[Recent efforts to curtail voting rights] have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us, and has made the nation exceptional, as well as an example for all of the world. We must be true to the arc of America's history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise."

This is the United States of America, a pluralistic democracy. Voting is one of the most fundamental acts in democratic societies, and free and fair elections is a constituent feature of such societies. We must not allow partisan politics, and the desire for some type of electoral advantage to undermine the vitality of democracy in America. We must protect and defend the rights of our fellow citizens to have access to the ballot, or else we risk democratic regression.

Gingrich Opens Wide Lead in Race for the Republican Party Nomination

2011-12-13T21:03:00.001-05:00

The latest Washington Post / NBC Poll [posted below] has Newt Gingrich ahead of the rest of the GOP field by a substantive margin. In this recently released poll, Newt Gingrich was polling at 40%, a percentage that was higher than his top two competitors combined. The poll had Mitt Romney, long considered to be the most viable frontrunner in the field, with support from 23% of prospective Republican Primary voters. Texas Congressmen, Ron Paul, came in third with support from 9% of Republican Primary voters. Gingrich is the latest of a string of candidates who have become the main challenger to Mitt Romney for the Republican Party nomination.

Party Polarization in American Politics: What Are the Core Causes of the Divisiveness?

2011-12-11T16:43:00.006-05:00

Everyone is aware of the fact that politics in the United States has become increasingly divisive. The governing process has almost come to a complete standstill because of the inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together to resolve some of the more pressing issues that the nation faces. When the United States Congress passed Obama’s economic stimulus bill in February of 2009, not a single Republican in the United States House of Representatives voted for the piece of legislation; only three moderate Republicans in the United States Senate supported the measure. Nearly a year later the landmark “Patients Affordability and Care Act” passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber. The financial regulation bill, referred to as the “Dodd-Frank Act” also passed in a very partisan manner. Since the Republicans have taken over the United States House of Representatives, Congress has been unable to get much done. Battles over the federal budget and disagreements about how to reduce the deficit have pitted Democrats against Republicans in a way that has brought party polarization and the politics of brinksmanship in the United States to the forefront. What are the causes for the increasing levels of party polarization in the United States?

There seems to be a number of possible explanations for why politics in America has become more polarized. However, I think that the three most compelling explanations are (1) partisan redistricting, (2) constituency changes, and (3) institutional changes.

The first factor contributing to the rise of party polarization is partisan redistricting. Every decade the nation undergoes a national census in order to more fully understand the nature of population changes across the country, and to figure out which states gain or lose congressional seats during the apportionment process. Because states may either lose or gain seats, these states are often forced to redraw district lines during a process referred to as redistricting. In many states, redistricting is an entirely partisan process; regardless of whether or not one party or two parties partake in the redrawing of district lines. If one party controls the process, they will pack oppositional voters in as few districts as possible so that they will have an electoral advantage in the remaining districts. Whereas, when two parties engage in the act of redrawing district lines, they will negotiate and renegotiate in order to maximize party representation and the security of incumbent politicians. Following redistricting in the early 1990s, 63 members from new districts were 25% more polarizing than those elected in old districts; indicating the construction of heavily partisan districts during the redistricting phase. States that were redrawn in a more dramatic fashion than others underwent a polarization level that was 3x as much as those states where district lines underwent minor changes. In these redrawn districts constituents casted more partisan votes, indicated by a more substantial difference in the portion of votes allocated to the winner and loser in the election, and elected more partisan members.

The second factor contributing to the rise of polarizing politics in the United States is constituent change. Elections in the United States are geographical. They occur within clearly defined borders whether these borders are states, counties, cities, or districts within the three. Thus, the homogenization of such geographical spaces can contribute to the ideological sorting of voters in such a way that these voters contribute to the rise of polarization within the American political system. Demographic changes that result in a disproportionate number of African-Americans within an electoral space will result in the election of a more liberal or Democratic political candidate, while a district with a disproportionate number of wealthy residents may result in an electoral advantage for Republican candidates. The lack of heterogeneous electoral spaces, which is the product of a number of factors including but not limited to (1) personal residential preferences, (2) income-inequality, and (3) politically-motivated redistricting, tend to make electorates more ideological extreme and the result is more ideological extreme members in the federal legislative body. Moderate candidates just do not win elections in this type of polarizing electoral landscape.

The third factor contributing to party polarization in the United States is institutional change. There have been three institutional changes that have encouraged polarized politics in America. First, there has been a shift away from seniority towards party loyalty in the granting of committee chairmanships. Second, there has been a reduction in cross-pressured members in the United States Congress, mostly due to partisan gerrymandering. Third, the most polarized members of a particular political party seem to be acquiring an increasing amount of power [think Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi].

Partisan gerrymandering, constituent change, and institutional change have all led to increasing levels of polarization in American politics, which could be good or bad. In past cases divided government induced compromise between the two parties. However, in recent congressional sessions, divided government has resulted in revolving gridlock. Our politicians have been unable to make compromises in the name of sound governance, and with negative implications for the American people. The question that we current face is: how do we resolve polarization politics in such a way that members of both parties can reach agreements and undertake the necessary actions to push our nation forward in a number of policy domains?

Quick Thoughts: On Newt Gingrich’s Perceptions of Low-Income America

2011-12-07T15:50:00.005-05:00

In a speech give at an Iowa townhall meeting, Republican Presidential contender, Newt Gingrich stated the following about low-income individuals:

"Start with the following two facts: Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal."

This statement is indicative of what Newt Gingrich believes about a large segment, of poor and working class individuals in the United States; he views this particular segment of American society as a jobless people, with little to no work ethic and whose only way of making money is through engagement in extra-legal activities. This type of sweeping generalization and factually inaccuracy have no place in a presidential campaign. The divisive rhetoric by Newt Ginrich was used as way to curry favor with the more conservative wing of the Republican Party, but is deeply insulting to the poor and working class, who live a personal, social and economic reality that is completely alien to Newt Gingrich's statement.

Robert L. Woodson, of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, argued that Gingrich’s statement “really do a disservice to the conservative movement” and that it was “insulting to generalize like that about a whole group of people, many of whom are working very hard.”

There is nothing wrong with promoting self-sufficiency and work ethic. However, Gingrich was not doing this in his remark. I have not seen Gingrich advocating for the establishment of jobs training programs and increased funding for higher education; the types of programs that can help individuals to become self-sufficient and harder workers. Instead he decided to make a blanket statement about a group of people with the hope of scoring political points with the conservative base in Iowa, weeks before the Iowa Caucus. This type of move is a political one at the core; however, it is not presidential.

Herman Cain is Out: Where Will His Support Go?

2011-12-03T14:51:00.004-05:00

GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain decided to exit the primary race on Saturday. After months of captivating the more conservative members of the Republican Primary, Cain has decided to call it quits. Cain's decision was largely prompted by an increasing number of sexual harassment allegations from previous employees, and the latest accusation that he had a 13-year affair with a woman by the name of Ginger White. After having risen in the polls in early fall, Cain support levels amongst prospective Republican Primary voters have fallen significantly. Once the frontrunner in many polls, Cain has dropped down to third. In recent polls, Cain is averaging 14% support from Republican Primary voters, coming in at a distant third.

A Real Clear Politic's average of five recent polls shows that the Republican Primary field has a new frontrunner. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has been able to do the unexpected; he has emerged as the most likely candidate to receive the Republican Party nominee. Many are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich will likely fall off in a similar fashion as Bachmman, Perry, and Cain. It's a tough call. Newt Gingrich is rising with only a few short weeks before the primary race kicks off with the Iowa caucus, which is quickly followed by the New Hampshire Primary. Gingrich's high levels of support in other early primary states such as South Carolina and Florida may be exactly what he needs to propel him into "Super Tuesday," when many states are expected to hold their nominating primaries and caucuses. The Real Clear Politic's average of five polls has Newt Gingrich leading Romney amongst Republican Primary voters by a little over six points [26.6 to 20.4]. We will have to wait and see whether Mitt Romney can slow down Newt Gingrich's momentum in the 2012 GOP nomination process.

43% Approval Rating, 9% Unemployment: Can President Obama Win With These Numbers?

2011-11-28T02:01:00.003-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quick Thoughts: Deficit Committee Fails to Reach an Agreement

2011-11-22T21:57:00.003-05:00

Last night the bipartisan deficit reduction committee announced that they have failed to reach an agreement that would cut $1.2 trillion dollars from the projected budget deficit. The inability of the committee to take decisive action by reducing the debt burden of the United States has triggered a series of automatic cuts, which will go into effect beginning in 2013. These cuts include a $600 billion reduction in military and security spending as well as an additional $600 billion dollars in domestic spending cuts.

Despite having failed to reach an agreement by tomorrow’s deadline, the President has informed congressional leadership that they have more than a year to present to him a serious deficit reduction plan if they wish to avoid the automatic spending cuts that were signed into law as a part of the debt deal that was struck in early August. The latest example of Washington gridlock highlights the persistent struggle that our elected officials face in terms of reaching across the aisle, making compromises, and implementing sound fiscal and economic policies. It's become increasingly difficult to foresee this session of Congress taking substantive action to address the national debt problem. Unless both sides of the debate agree to make concessions to their political opponents, we are going to continue to have inconsequential discussions and debates about our swelling budget deficit with little to no practical policy implications; we will continue to face an exacerbating debt crisis.

When the GOP goes POG: Politics over Governance and the American Jobs Act

2011-11-21T09:51:00.003-05:00

It has been more than two months since President Barack Obama pitched the American Jobs Act to a joint session of Congress. With unemployment consistently above 9%, and with more than 14 million Americans out of work, the President figured it was a government imperative to take action to help solve the jobs crisis. The American Jobs Act is Obama’s plan for fostering job creation in the United States. The act is a $450 billion economic stimulus package design to tackle cyclical and structural unemployment in the United States by providing employers with fiscal incentives to hire workers and the unemployed with the jobs skills and training required to be competent and qualified job seekers.

The American Jobs Act is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation; it is one that consists of proposals that Democrats and Republicans have both supported in the past. Obama has noted this during his initial proposal to the United States Congress in early September and in several town hall meetings across the country afterwards. The American Job Act was crafted to assist unemployed Americans by:

1. Providing tax cuts to small businesses how hire additional works or increases the wages of their existing workforce
2. Investment on infrastructure projects [for laid of construction workers], subsidies to federal and local governments to maintain and re-hired laid off teachers, firefighters, and police officers
3. Reform the unemployment insurance system so that unemployed workers could receive the type of jobs skills and training that is necessary to be competitive in today’s workforce
4. Prohibiting employers from discriminating against the long-term unemployed
5. Provides summer employment and enrichment opportunities for low-income, disadvantaged youth

The Republicans in the United States Congress have rejected President Obama’s American Jobs Act. They have suggested that it is just another stimulus bill, which is doomed to fail. After successfully getting Congress to take up the bill in smaller steps, the GOP have vote down two measures. Republicans in the Senate filibustered the American Jobs Act as a $447 billion dollar package. The Democrats then proposed a bill that consisted of $35 billion in aid to states in order to prevent the layoff of additional teachers and first responders. Again, the party of no chose politics over governance. Weeks later the Senate rejected an infrastructure jobs bill, which could have put many unemployed Americans back to work on infrastructure projects across the country.

The employment figures that are released on the first Friday of every month continue to show that the nation is not creating the jobs that millions of Americans desperately need. In Washington, DC we have partisan gridlock and fighting that have completely stalled the practice of governing at the federal level. The President continues to propose plans to the United States Congress, but there is no evidence to suggest that the GOP is dedicated to solving the unemployment crisis in the United States. It seems as if they are preoccupied with doing whatever it takes to prevent the President from facilitating a more forceful economic recovery, which is consistent with their goal of making President Obama a one-term president. There is nothing wrong with politicians playing politics; that’s the game they choose to play. However, at some point they have to realize that the game of politics have negative consequences for the people that they represent and can undermine notions of a representative democracy. Who does that GOP represent? Why are they not supporting policies or proposing policies that will put Americans back to work? Why are they putting politics over governance?

More Gridlock as Debt Deadline Approaches

2011-11-20T11:16:00.003-05:00

We are three and a half days before the bipartisan debt committee will have run out of time to complete a plan that reduces $1.2 trillion dollars from the projected budget deficit over the next 10 years. These cuts amount to nearly $120 billion dollars on an annual basis. Talks between the 12-member panel, composed of six Democrats and six Republicans, have largely failed during the two and half month since Congress passed legislation authorizing the commission of the committee. The central issue, which divides the parties, is their unique perspectives on how to resolve the long-term debt crisis that the United States is currently facing.

The GOP members of the debt panel have thrown their support behind a plan proposed by Senator Pat Toomey. The “Toomey Plan” will (1) limit tax breaks for people who itemize their deductions, (2) lower the overall tax rate across all income levels, (3) decrease the top income tax bracket from 35% to 28%, (4) and raise Medicare eligibility to 67. The problem with the “Toomey Plan” is that it alters that tax code in a way that disproportionately favors the rich. Also, the plan fails to generate the type of revenue that is necessary to help mitigate the national debt crisis. The “Toomey Plan” is expected to increase tax revenue by $300 billion over the next two years. This is only 25% of the $1.2 trillion dollars that the committee has to cut from the projected deficit in order to reach an agreement by Wednesday. Where is the other $900 billion going to come from?

While it appears as if the GOP has taken a partisan approach in the deficit-reduction battle that is being waged in the United States Congress, Democratic members and non-members of the debt committee have been proposing bipartisan solutions to handling the nations debt problem. Last month, Democrats proposed a bipartisan deficit-reduction plan to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. The plan called for the implementation of a bold, 10-year, $3 trillion dollar deficit reduction effort. In this plan the Democratic Party made a number of concessions. First, the Democrats agreed to cut nearly a half trillion dollars of transfer payments and social support in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care subsidies. Second, the plan called for an additional $1.2 trillion in spending cuts for domestic, social programs. The plan also called for a $1.3 trillion dollar increase in revenues. Boehner’s response was that the cuts did not go far enough, asserting “[he] thought there’s a lot more room there to help find common ground.” The Republicans responded with a $2 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan with nearly 35% of the cuts coming from reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion more in cuts than the $500 billion already put on the table by the Democrats.

What we are seeing in Washington today is gridlock politics at its worst. The increasing polarization of the United States Congress, as indicated by the DW-Nominate, a measure of the ideological leaning of congress members, has produced a form of partisan bickering and obstruction of governance that has had negative consequence for the individuals that this legislative body purports to represent. I’m not sure if the committee is going to be able to reach an agreement by Wednesday night. I think that the United States Congress may pass legislation that extends the deadline, which will guarantee that we will find ourselves in the same position that we are in today, again. It’s not sound governance, but it is contemporary American governance. Countdown to 2012!