<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The Political Science Blog | Department of Political Science at Union University</title>
		<link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm</link>
		<description>reflections from the faculty of the political science department at Union Univeristy</description>
		<copyright>Copyright 2013 Union University</copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:12:38 CST</lastBuildDate>
		<atom:link href="http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog-rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
	<title>States Should Reform Health Care</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Last week, Governor Bill Haslam decided to delay expanding Medicaid because the Obama Administration rejected his request for flexibility.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Under Haslam&amp;rsquo;s Tennessee Plan, the state would provide subsidies to poor Tennesseans to purchase health insurance while requiring co-pays for those who can afford it, tying medical payments to outcomes, and providing an opt-out if federal payments decrease.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Instead of rejecting the money outright or expanding a &amp;ldquo;broken&amp;rdquo; Medicaid program, Governor Haslam deserves credit for proposing a potentially more affordable, effective program.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;However, the big question is why, with governors of both parties leery of the federal government passing on greater Medicaid costs to states, aren&amp;rsquo;t more governors innovating in health care? &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Universal health coverage is a noble goal but President Obama based his plan on Massachusetts&amp;rsquo; unproven health care plan.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;While 94% of Massachusetts citizens now have health insurance, the plan did very little about costs, which is the greatest problem in the health care system. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Consequently, states should act as &amp;ldquo;laboratories of democracy&amp;rdquo; by testing different health care models to see what model provides the best results at the lowest cost.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Just as with welfare and education reform, the best models can spread to the other states or be implemented nationally. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Obamacare already has a waiver process to escape the insurance mandate in 2017 so all that is necessary is to move up the waiver process, make the regulations more flexible, and potentially allow states to combine all Medicaid, Medicare, and health care tax benefits to test their ideas.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;This reform effort would be beneficial for most everyone.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;While most states would probably tweak the current system, like Haslam proposes, these tweaks could improve cost and care.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;However, the waiver would also provide incentives for more comprehensive reform.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Conservative states could promote their free market ideas and provide subsidies, based on income and health, for citizens to purchase any health insurance plan, create regional health care markets to induce greater competition, require greater price and quality care transparency, and/or enact medical malpractice reform.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Liberal states could create a single payer system where the government determines what health care to provide and at what rate.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Or they could let technocrats control health care costs, as Obama proposes, by controlling payments to providers to incentive the creation of Accountable Care Organizations to manage diseases via bundled payments, using more nurse practitioners to provide primary care, and mandating &amp;ldquo;best practices&amp;rdquo; in disease treatment.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The public wins on many different levels.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;First, all citizens receive basic health coverage of some sort.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Second, a bad policy is not imposed on everyone.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Third, we could compare cost and health results to see which system works best.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Fourth, we can fine-tune any system before going national.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The added benefit is that states must balance their budgets so we will see how liberal states ration health care and how the medical community and public responds to that rationing and the level of subsidies for which people are willing to pay in conservative states. &amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The major problem is the uncertainty affecting business over the impact of Obamacare would be extended and business in multiple states would have higher administrative costs in complying with different systems. However, business should be willing to bear the costs for a more affordable, quality health care system that improves their bottom line over the long term.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;This column originally appeared in the April 7 edition of The Jackson Sun
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=162</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=162</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:12:38 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Jury Duty a Lesson in Civics</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;I have been tapped for jury duty in Madison County. Recently, I joined 70-80 other citizens in a courtroom. A very polite judge provided our orientation and explained that for the next two months the state of Tennessee would have first claim on our time.
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;After the orientation, the judge met with many individuals, including me, who petitioned for particular days off during the two months because of plans already made or other special circumstances. When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he treated me with respect and granted my request. I walked out of the courtroom, down the stairs, and got into my car. By the time I sat down and grabbed the steering wheel, my hands were shaking.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;I had a fairly smooth experience. So why the apparently excessive reaction? No one mistreated me. I received the respect a citizen in a republic should expect.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;The answer is simple. For the first time in my life, I personally had to ask an officer of the government whether I would be allowed to spend certain days in certain places. It was completely in the power of the judge to prevent me from leaving town in order to serve on juries yet to be empaneled. There was something about that fact that shook me to the core. I suddenly felt unfree.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;Is it outrageous that a judge should be able to corral citizens for a period of about two months and call upon them as needed for jury service? I&amp;rsquo;m not ready to make such a judgment. There may be a better method available. But it certainly seems that something like that power is necessary for us to offer trial by juries.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;The point of this brief deliberation is not to call for an end to jury duty. Though it can be burdensome, jury service is an important way of maintaining the role of citizens in the act of governing. But there is a lesson to be learned. Government power is an awesome power. Citizens who have committed no wrong of any kind can be taken by the shoulder and compelled to pay taxes, serve on juries or even leave home and fight in a war.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;An instrument of this type must not be overused. This essentially libertarian insight is difficult to overstate. Because government is the simplest way to make something happen &amp;mdash; coercion by raw force is often the simplest &amp;mdash; those who would bring about a better order will always be tempted to employ its power. Every time we increase the power of Leviathan we should shudder a little and take comfort in knowing that we only did so after the most agonizing and wakeful deliberation.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;Jury duty has a paradoxical effect on the citizen. It simultaneously empowers us as it restrains us. It is an opportunity and an obstacle. When we serve, we may well make choices that result in our fellow citizens being fined or imprisoned. It is a good reminder of the enormous responsibility we have.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;In the meantime, I need to go call a number I&amp;rsquo;ll be checking every weeknight for the next couple of months. It tells me where I am required to be.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;This column originally appeared in the March 8 edition of The Jackson Sun&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=161</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=161</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:19:11 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Can We All Get Along?</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;As we face another budgetary crisis through ideological conflict, many Americans ask, a la Rodney King, &amp;ldquo;Why can&amp;rsquo;t we all get along?&amp;rdquo; The simple answer is that we argue because we have differing assumptions about the world, and ask questions that lack overlapping answers.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;The typical liberal believes that humans are naturally good but have been corrupted by their environment. Since we have seen society progress over time, they believe that government can step in and fix broken institutions to continue humanity&amp;rsquo;s development. However, they do not believe that we can know absolute truth, and so they promote a tolerant society where each person pursues the life one chooses, so we can eventually identify the good life.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Consequently, liberals support social justice as they try to alleviate the oppressed so they can live freely. Today, liberals believe that the source of oppression is not government but poverty, prejudice, illness, ignorance, etc.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;For these reasons, they believe in equal worth of all individuals, and call for equal political power, opportunity, economic standing and equal respect for all people. And the means to these goals is government, which they believe reflects all people, as we have a shared responsibility to help all citizens flourish.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;In contrast, conservatives look throughout history and see that humans are naturally selfish, but are capable of becoming good through good examples. Since humans are selfish, they believe societies are fragile, and that our society will fall because all societies have fallen. Moreover, the idea that we can perfect society is a fantasy, and they point out the unintended consequences of utopian attempts to change America.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;Conservatives believe in ordered liberty or freedom with decency, as people are free to live as they wish but must exercise self-restraint. When we live a free and decent life, each person can fully meet one&amp;rsquo;s potential, which promotes human dignity.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Conversely, freedom without limits harms oneself and leads one to use others, which decreases human dignity.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;In politics, conservatives are less concerned with the size of the state and more interested in finding the proper balance between government and citizens, and ensuring government policy works with, not against, our selfish nature. Naturally, conservatives seek to maintain a free and decent society against the forces of decline.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;Liberals see government spending alleviating the oppressed, and believe we should fund the welfare state at whatever cost to achieve that. Therefore, if we cut government spending, we further oppression, which is evil. This explains liberals&amp;rsquo; tax position and unwillingness to discuss meaningful entitlement reform. The problem is, we have an unaffordable social safety net, and failure to reform it means liberals will hurt those who need it the most.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;Conservatives see the debt and deficit as a result of our &amp;ldquo;anything goes, me-first&amp;rdquo; society and fear we are bankrupting the nation while the entitlement society saps individual initiative. This combination will make future generations worse off, unless we act now. Therefore, conservatives see reducing and reforming the welfare state as essential to American survival and see liberal attempts at social engineering as well-meaning but ultimately foolish.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;So until we understand the position of others and work to address their concerns, we will continue to argue.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;This column originally appeared in the March 1 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=160</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=160</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:25:25 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Create a Path to Work</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;Immigration is heating up again as a political issue with the second-term president and others discussing possible answers to the low-level chaos which currently characterizes the movement of workers between Mexico and the United States.The basic outlines of plans to address the problem shift to fit familiar lines of argument. I would like to suggest a novel approach which changes the nature of the debate to reduce the role of citizenship.
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;To state the matter very succinctly, we should deal with immigration in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA provided for the free movement of goods across the border. The best way to handle the immigration problem is to provide for the free movement of workers across the border, as well. We could accomplish this goal by negotiating a worker addendum to the agreement in existence.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;It was originally believed that NAFTA would lead to so much investment and opportunity in Mexico that illegal immigration would stop being such a big problem. That view was naive. Mexico has become more prosperous, but its economic engine still lags very far behind what its neighbor to the north can offer.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;Workers will continue to come across the border. Their labor is often in demand. One of the shortcomings of NAFTA is that it didn&amp;rsquo;t include a general provision for workers crossing into the member countries. Adding such a provision could alleviate many problems the United States has experienced during the last few decades.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;How would it operate? Citizens from the countries involved in the agreement would be free to enter the member states to work. All they would need to do is to register as a foreign worker under NAFTA, obtain a proxy for a social security number which would allow for simple payment of taxes and find employment.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;This solution would simplify matters significantly. Workers would not need amnesty, as they would be here legally. They would not fear reporting crimes or traffic accidents because they need not fear deportation. States could provide driver&amp;rsquo;s licenses without fear of creating some presumption of citizenship.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;The argument so far has often revolved around the problem of giving citizen status to people who have clearly broken the law. Rather than creating a path to citizenship, why not take that issue off the table and simply create a path to work? We can give one benefit without giving the other.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;There would still be the matter of children of registered workers being born in the United States with birthright citizenship. However, those children would no longer be tied to parents living in the United States in a quasi-criminal, illegitimate way.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;Rather than giving amnesty to illegals in the United States today and setting yet another bad precedent to encourage future law breaking, we can offer current illegals a simple path to living legitimately in the United States as a NAFTA-registered worker.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;Capital moves freely. Goods move freely. Why not let the workers move freely? We can protect the value of citizenship, while simultaneously ending the problem of a large population of illegals within our borders.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div&amp;rt;This column originally appeared in the Feb. 1st edition of The Jackson Sun&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=159</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=159</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:17:47 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Obama's Tactics May Fail</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama said that &amp;ldquo;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not.&amp;rdquo; In his second inaugural address, President Obama makes his claim to be the &amp;ldquo;liberal Reagan.&amp;rdquo;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;With the public still blaming Republicans for our economic troubles and gridlock in Washington, the GOP brand is toxic as only 26% of Americans approve of the party and 49% disapprove. This repudiation of the Republican Party potentially allows the president to create a new governing philosophy and institutional structures to make the Democrats the majority for a generation or two. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-tab-count:1&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Reaching back to the Declaration of Independence, the president claims that the bedrock principle of the Founders was the claim that &amp;ldquo;all men are created equal&amp;rdquo; and that equality is the &amp;ldquo;guiding star&amp;rdquo; of American progress.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Then in his brief history of American development, Obama connects the Founders to Lincoln&amp;rsquo;s desire to end slavery, efforts to grow the nation in the late 19&amp;lt;sup&amp;rt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;rt; Century, TR&amp;rsquo;s Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson&amp;rsquo;s New Freedoms, and FDR&amp;rsquo;s New Deal to promote competition and economic fair play, to LBJ&amp;rsquo;s Great Society to fight poverty.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Implicitly, he claims that universal health care, higher taxes on the rich, and his second term agenda is consistent with the Founder&amp;rsquo;s ideals and the American tradition. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;He even claims that &amp;ldquo;preserving individual freedom ultimately requires collective action&amp;rdquo; to suggest that the struggle for equality should trump claims of personal freedom, the &amp;ldquo;guiding star&amp;rdquo; of conservatives. If the public accepts this claim, conservative efforts to oppose his agenda may fail. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Institutionally, the president seeks to consolidate the &amp;ldquo;coalition of the ascendant&amp;rdquo; (minorities, women, and the young) to the Democrats with equal pay, gay rights, immigration reform, voting rights, poverty alleviation, and climate change legislation.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Knowing that the GOP is the minority party nationally and must appeal to these groups, the president has chosen an aggressive, uncompromising strategy to force Republicans to move closer to his ideas.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;However, the president&amp;rsquo;s ambitions face several obstacles.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;First, his legislative agenda is in trouble.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Republicans have few short term incentives to cooperate because only 4 House Republicans represent districts that Obama won &amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;color:black&quot;&amp;rt;while there are 17 House and 7 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2014 in districts and states that lean Republican who may not support his agenda. &amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;color:black&quot;&amp;rt;Second, Obama&amp;rsquo;s strategy of using the public to force Congressional submission usually backfires as it does not allow both sides to claim victory.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Moreover, taking strident public stands on issues means that if Obama compromises or loses, he looks weak. &amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;color:black&quot;&amp;rt;Third, splits in the Democratic Party will emerge over spending priorities because there is insufficient revenue to fund everything Democrats want and the eventual economic necessity to reform entitlements will further divide Democrats. &amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;color:black&quot;&amp;rt;Finally, the political environment currently favors Obama but the problems of implementing health care reform, the economic costs of regulating carbon dioxide, and the public&apos;s concern with large deficits and the debt means that he will be on the defensive through most of his term.&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;color:black&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;This appeared in the Jan. 25th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=158</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=158</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:58:21 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Obama's Grand Ambitions</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;Today, the nation witnessed the second inauguration of Barack Obama.&amp;nbsp;While the inauguration four years ago was historic, looking back we may see his second inauguration historic for another reason.&amp;nbsp;In his inaugural address today, President Obama made clear his ambition to usher in the next great phase of liberalism.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Five years ago, then Senator Obama said that he wished to be a transformational president like Ronald Reagan.&amp;nbsp;To be that transformational figure, he needs to repudiate the existing regime and create a suitable replacement according to Stephen Skowronek&amp;rsquo;s theory in his book President Leadership and Political Time.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The first component of the theory has potentially been met.&amp;nbsp;In 2008, most people blamed George W. Bush and the Republicans for the economic meltdown.&amp;nbsp;Over the past four years, Obama used every opportunity to lay the economic blame on the Republican&amp;rsquo;s deregulatory policy, the deficit on Republican tax cuts for the rich, and gridlock on the ideological extremism on Republicans, their rejection of science, and their desire to protect the top 1%.&amp;nbsp;Today, we see that most people still blame Bush and the Republicans for the underperforming economy and for most of the nation&amp;rsquo;s troubles as the Republican brand is toxic.&amp;nbsp;Recent opinion polls show that approval of Congressional Republicans are in the 20s and people disapprove of the GOP by 23% (36% approval to 59% disapproval) while the 48% of the public approves of Democrats.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The second component of creating a suitable replacement began with health care reform and will continue through his second term.&amp;nbsp;To accomplish this, Skowronek suggests a president must redefine politics and then create an institutional structure to perpetuate the president&amp;rsquo;s electoral coalition and make the party the majority for a generation.&amp;nbsp;President Obama&amp;rsquo;s inaugural address today continues his effort to redefine American politics.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;In his address, the president meditates on the meaning of the Declaration of Independent and declares that equality has been the guiding vision of American politics.&amp;nbsp;Traditionally, transformational presidents, or what Skowronek calls reconstructive presidents, try to redefine the relationship between state and society. Philosophically, presidents seek to retrieve past fundamental values that have been lost in the old order.&amp;nbsp;For Obama, he claims that Republicans ignored equality and in so doing departed from our Founder&amp;rsquo; intentions.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;His inaugural address begins with a component of the American Creed that all accept: the Declaration&amp;rsquo;s claim that &amp;ldquo;all men are created equal&amp;rdquo; and then later says that equality &amp;ldquo;is the star that guides us still.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;He then links equality with the past talking about how together Americans ended slavery, expanded across the Continent and created &amp;ldquo;schools and colleges to train out workers&amp;rdquo; during the latter half of the 19&amp;lt;sup&amp;rt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;rt; Century, &amp;ldquo;discovered a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play&amp;rdquo; in the early 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;rt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;rt; Century and how we resolved to &amp;ldquo;care for the vulnerable, and protects its people from life worst hazards and misfortune&amp;rdquo; in the 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;rt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;rt; Century.&amp;nbsp;Through his recitation, he connects Lincoln&amp;rsquo;s fight for equality to the Homestead Act and government subsidies to railroads to populate the West, the Morrill Act that created land grant colleges, to TR&amp;rsquo;s Square Deal and trust busting, Woodrow Wilson&amp;rsquo;s New Freedoms, and FDR&amp;rsquo;s New Deal to regulate business and the New Deal and Great Society that provided a safety net to the underprivileged.&amp;nbsp;Unspoken as part of this arc of history, President Obama has contributed to this movement through universal health care and higher taxes on the rich.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The dominant claim of his address is that equality is the value that has made America great and that is we continue to pursue equality &amp;ldquo;America&amp;rsquo;s possibilities are limitless.&amp;rdquo; Just as important, he emphasizes that we did this together.&amp;nbsp;And when he means together, he means that we did it through government.&amp;nbsp;The president did not talk about the role of civil society and individuals initiative but how &amp;ldquo;preserving our individual freedom ultimately requires collective action&amp;rdquo; where collective action means government. &amp;nbsp;The implicit idea is that equality is necessary for people to be free and that equality is more important than freedom.&amp;nbsp;Thus, those who support promoting liberty or freedom at the expense of equality are acting contrary to our Founders&amp;rsquo; ideals and the American tradition.&amp;nbsp;If Obama is successful in making politics about promoting equality, conservatives and Republicans will be on the losing end of most political debates in the near future.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;To create the institutional structure to perpetuate these ideas, the president then argues that it is now our duty to &amp;ldquo;bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;In laying out the path to achieve this end, he calls for climate change legislation, equal pay for women, equality for gays including same sex marriage, voting rights, immigration reform, and poverty alleviation.&amp;nbsp;These policies are his attempts to convince the disparate branches of liberalism together that we can alleviate the problems of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and the environment at the same time.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;If President Obama can pass these policies, he would cement what some call the &amp;ldquo;coalition of the ascendant&amp;rdquo; (minorities, women, and young people) to the Democratic Party making it the majority for a generation or two. President Obama realizes that these groups gave him his electoral edge and that they will continue to grow to be a larger part of the electorate. He also knows that Republicans, as the minority party in the nation, needs to appeal to these groups to win. Thus, he has little incentive to compromise as he squeezes Republicans between the short term need to appease their conservative base and the long term need to appeal to these groups.&amp;nbsp;Obama believes that Republicans must move significantly in his direction or commit electoral suicide.&amp;nbsp;He will bargain for as much as he can get in order to split the Republican Party to brand the GOP as extremist for opposing his policies while using the minority of Republicans who support him to confirm his postpartisan politics.&amp;nbsp;Overall, this strategy would move the nation in the liberal direction so that the moderate position today would be to the left of where it was ten years ago and the moderate position of the future would be to the left of where it is today.&amp;nbsp;Even if he does not achieve all of these objectives in his term (which he will not), he provides the policy and political path forward for Democrats in the coming years.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;We can see the politics of the Obama presidency in action already.&amp;nbsp;Frist, he has refused to compromise with Republicans on the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling and won both times as taxes went up on the wealthy (and everyone else via the payroll tax) and Republicans gave up requiring cuts in government equal to the rise in the debt ceiling.&amp;nbsp;These successes only confirm Obama&amp;rsquo;s strategy and embolden him to remain intransigent to maximize his political position.&amp;nbsp;Moreover, his move to transform his campaign organization, Obama for America, into a political organization, Organizing for America, means that he will use grassroots pressure to force recalcitrant Republicans AND Democrats to support him.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Second, we see Obama beginning to remake the Administration in his image. The first term, especially due to the financial problems, required him to hire many Clinton veterans who are more moderate.&amp;nbsp;Now we are seeing what a real Obama Administration looks like.&amp;nbsp;In foreign policy, we see Obama name an internationalist Secretary of State who believes in working with international organization, a Secretary of Defense who believes in reducing the size of the military, and a CIA Director who supports a drone war that allows the US to reduce its military footprint abroad.&amp;nbsp;For Treasury, we see the Administration refusing to reach out to the business community by appointing a political apparatchik who opposes real entitlement reform.&amp;nbsp;While he has not replaced many domestic advisors and cabinet secretaries yet, the names mentioned reflect a younger generation of Democrats who are more committed to the president&amp;rsquo;s ideological agenda.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Yet despite the president&amp;rsquo;s grand ambitions, he may not be able to achieve his goals.&amp;nbsp;First, we operate under a separated power system where no one individual or party can impose its will and Republicans have few short term incentives to cooperate.&amp;nbsp;In the House, only 4 House Republicans represent districts that Obama won so they have more to fear from a primary challenge.&amp;nbsp;Furthermore, 17 House Democrats represent Republican districts and 6 Senate Democrats represent deep red states while 3 represent swing states so a liberal agenda endangers them in 2014.&amp;nbsp;Except for immigration reform where Republicans have short and long term incentives to cooperate, the House will pass very little of his agenda and controversial aspects of his agenda like an assault weapons ban and climate change probably cannot pass the Senate.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Second according to Samuel Kernell, the strategy of &amp;ldquo;going public&amp;rdquo; to pressure elected officials to support the president usually backfires.&amp;nbsp;By failing to extend benefits for compliance but rather imposing costs for noncompliance makes, bargaining is difficult as there is no exchange so that all parties feel they got something.&amp;nbsp;Moreover, the public posturing of the president fixes the president&amp;rsquo;s position which means that compromise or defeat makes him look weak. Finally, going over the representatives and Senators&amp;rsquo; heads undermines their legitimacy as tribunes of their constituents making them less likely to cooperate.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Third, we lack the financial resources to fund all that the president desires.&amp;nbsp;The simple fact is that we cannot currently guarantee the promises that we have already made to senior citizens and the public opposes new spending when we have such large deficits and debt.&amp;nbsp;When this is clear, the competing branches of liberalism will start fighting among themselves over who is most deserving of government action and help.&amp;nbsp;While the Administration hopes to further raise taxes on the wealthy, there is not enough money there to fund his program.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The only two options left then are cutting spending or raising taxes.&amp;nbsp;The president needs to reform entitlements as even he says health care spending is the biggest driver of deficits.&amp;nbsp;But reforming Medicare and Medicaid would reduce spending on the poor which would disrupt the Democratic coalition by dividing liberals and splitting socially liberal businessmen and the young from the poor and minorities.&amp;nbsp;The need for more revenue is why climate change received the most attention of any policy initiative in the inaugural address.&amp;nbsp;The president and liberals are hoping for a carbon tax to raise the money they need to fund the liberal agenda.&amp;nbsp;However, a carbon tax or a value added tax (VAT) would hit the poor the hardest and create ruptures in the Democratic coalition.&amp;nbsp;The question is would the president be willing to confront his liberal base to make these changes?&amp;nbsp;His history so far suggests he would not.&amp;nbsp;So even if President Obama does not confront these problems, the Democratic Party must confront them soon because of the potential solvency problems of Social Security and Medicare.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Fourth, congressional inaction and his lame duck status in the last two years will lead him to more executive action and a greater emphasis on foreign policy.&amp;nbsp;With climate change legislation unlikely to pass either the House or Senate, the president will use the EPA&amp;rsquo;s power to regulate carbon dioxide to reduce climate change.&amp;nbsp;While it will apply the rules to new plants, the Administration has a tricky decision about how to regulate older power plants without raising energy costs and launching a &amp;ldquo;war on coal.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;The Administration hopes that the regulations will force business to negotiate a climate change framework and support the necessary taxes to avoid something even more onerous.&amp;nbsp;However, a Republican House and the number of Democratic states that rely on coal and other dirty fossil fuels make an onerous regulatory regime politically difficult.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Finally while the president is on the offensive now, he will soon move to the defensive.&amp;nbsp;In 2014, health care reform begins in earnest. However, the difficulties of setting up the exchanges, the failure to expand Medicaid in certain states, the fines for not buying insurance and other things will continue to plague the start-up and implementation of the law.&amp;nbsp;While the president will suggest tweaks to the law, the problems could make an unpopular law even more unpopular.&amp;nbsp;When you combine these problems with the unpopularity associated with climate change proposals, the national debt, and expected Republican gains in 2014, President Obama will most likely spend most of his second term defending his health care law and consolidating his political gains.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The president clearly has the upper hand politically at this point and is using it to advance his agenda.&amp;nbsp;However, the political environment will change and Republicans will adapt.&amp;nbsp;How well the president, Democrats, and Republicans play the political game over the next few years will determine whether Obama achieve his grand ambitions and earns his place in the pantheon of great presidents. &amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=157</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=157</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:07:07 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Democrats Need to Change</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Tennessee Democrats are in the position as national Republicans. &amp;nbsp;They are a minority and must change to be competitive.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;The decline of Southern Democrats is the result of civil rights, national security, social issues and economics leading conservatives into the Republican Party and liberals into the Democratic Party. Today, this ideological sorting means that Southern Democrats are moderate liberals, which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish themselves from the national party. As a result, moderate and conservative Southern voters have deserted Democrats.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;So what are Tennessee Democrats to do? While their chance of recovery is slim while Democrats control the White House, there are things they can do to lay the foundation for a revival.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;First, the state party needs to retool to better serve candidates. The state party needs to train activists to serve in campaign positions, which should spill over into strong local party organizations.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;The state party needs a chairman who can unite the party and who can raise money, coordinate Democratic interests and the legislative caucuses so they do not work at cross-purposes, and ensure that candidates in targeted races have the money to be competitive. Finally, the party must continue focusing on identifying, registering and mobilizing Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;Second, the party needs to become an urban-suburban party. Historically, Tennessee Democrats have relied on a rural-urban coalition, but national and state trends clearly show rural areas shifting Republican. Today, Tennessee Democrats are primarily an urban, minority, socially liberal party, which makes it nearly impossible to win statewide elections.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;For strategic purposes, the suburbs are a natural target because they are growing while rural areas are shrinking in population. If national trends are any indicator, the suburbs will become more Democratic as affluent urban minority voters move to the suburbs. Many white voters move to suburbs for better schools but commute to the city for jobs, which makes education and transportation policy important.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;Republican resistance to more taxes and spending for education and roads may provide Democrats a beachhead as voters want more and better services. &amp;nbsp;Republicans focusing on guns and social issues alienates the business community and makes suburban women believe the GOP has the wrong priorities.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content cpf-viewbox-edit-highlight&quot; style=&quot;background-color: rgb(242, 255, 225); cursor: url(http://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media/pfviewer/images/close.cur), auto; border-top-left-radius: 10px; border-top-right-radius: 10px; border-bottom-right-radius: 10px; border-bottom-left-radius: 10px; box-shadow: rgb(150, 150, 150) 5px 5px 5px; -webkit-box-shadow: rgb(150, 150, 150) 5px 5px 5px; font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;Third, Democrats need to refocus on local government, especially mid-size cities such as Jackson, Knoxville, Murfreesboro and Clarksville. Local government is more pragmatic and allows Democrats to connect with business leaders concerned with schools, roads and economic development.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;By running local government well, Democrats can create a more moderate profile, network with business people who fund political campaigns and use the regional media to gain suburban support. All this makes Democrats more attractive for higher office. Already, we see rising Democratic stars such as state Sen. Andy Berke run for mayor of Chattanooga while many expect state Sen. Lowe Finney to run for mayor of Jackson.
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;cpf-printOut-body-content&quot; style=&quot;font-family: &apos;Palatino,Georgia,&quot; times=&quot;&quot; new=&quot;&quot;&amp;rt;This article originally appeared in the Dec. 14 edition of The Jackson Sun&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=156</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=156</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:11:32 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Explaining Romney's Loss</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Mitt Romney ran an excellent campaign. I congratualte him in the hard work of leadership rather than living it up no some island paradise. He is an American hero.&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;However, he was the wrong person to run in a year when the single greatest challenge Republicans could make to the president rested on the repeal of Obamacare. Anti-Obamacare sentiment was enough to elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts when voters thought it might stop the legislation. It might well have been enough to put the right Republican over the top nationwide.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;But Mitt Romney could not make a convincing case against Obama&amp;rsquo;s law when it so closely resembled his own work in Massachusetts. His federalism distinction was technically accurate, but it made little sense to the typical voter.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;We may also have learned something about Americans and religion. Romney underperformed McCain in terms of votes. That is astonishing. President Obama&amp;rsquo;s support practically collapsed, as he brought in many fewer votes than in 2008. Had Romney been able to build on McCain&amp;rsquo;s overall base, he might have won the popular vote and possibly the White House.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;I can think of a few theories to explain Romney&amp;rsquo;s underperformance in total votes. One is that many conservatives refused to vote for a moderate Northeastern former governor who was the prime catalyst for a huge government health plan in his state.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Second, Romney&amp;rsquo;s ticket didn&amp;rsquo;t have Sarah Palin. She was a polarizing figure, but she had big crowds in 2008. The third theory is less attractive. Many Republican voters may have refused to support a member of the Mormon faith.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Republicans must crack the code of appealing to minorities. They lost African Americans, as usual. But the GOP also performed terribly with Hispanics and &amp;mdash;to my surprise &amp;mdash;with Asian Americans. Somehow, Republicans have ended up on the wrong side of some kind of us vs. them notion regarding race that is totally unjustified, but apparently has some currency of perception.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;This issue may have to become the top priority, because it is by far the best way to change the electoral math. The party needs a Manhattan Project for breaking down the racial barriers. It is amazing that the party that brought an end to slavery struggles so.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Finally (and related to the prior point), it seems that George W. Bush&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;compassionate conservatism&amp;rdquo; has been the recipient of too much vitriol. In this race, Romney did not have a rhetorical or programmatic shield to protect him from the usual charge of Republican unconcern for ordinary Americans and minority Americans.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Bush&amp;rsquo;s campaign was able to argue effectively for the role of civil society in addressing the problems of those who fall behind. In Britain, David Cameron argued from similar premises with his Big Society (as opposed to Big Government) and became prime minister.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;Back in Bush&amp;rsquo;s first term, I can recall NPR liberals complaining about the compelling nature of the conservative social-science arguments on the ability of marriage and family to blunt social pathologies, increase economic mobility, and break cycles of poverty. I didn&amp;rsquo;t hear many of those arguments this time around. I think it is time to revisit them.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;serif&amp;quot;;
color:windowtext&quot;&amp;rt;This article originally appeared in the Nov. 16 edition of The Jackson Sun&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=155</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=155</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:59:30 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Lessons for the GOP</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span class=&quot;Apple-tab-span&quot; style=&quot;white-space:pre&quot;&amp;rt;	&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;After losing&amp;nbsp;an election they think they should have won, Republicans are discussing what this election&apos;s results mean for them.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Many blame&amp;nbsp;the candidate and it is true that Mitt Romney made some major mistakes. He never defined himself,&amp;nbsp;failed to differentiate himself from George W. Bush, provided no real vision for the nation, and ruined any chance of getting Latino support with his position on illegal immigration. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;But President Obama also deserves credit for his&amp;nbsp;reelection strategy. Unable to run on his record, he successfully defined Romney as an out-of-touch outsourcer and mobilized a less enthused base to vote in greater percentages than four years ago.&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;But while the campaigns did matter, Republicans would be wrong to blame Romney solely for their defeat.&amp;nbsp;Instead, the GOP&apos;s future success&amp;nbsp;depends on how it addresses fundamental changes in the electorate. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;The Republican&amp;nbsp;party&apos;s&amp;nbsp;primary problem is that changing demographics favor Democrats.&amp;nbsp; First, Republicans lost 80% of the minority vote - a demographic that grew from 26% to 28% of the electorate in four years and will continue to grow. Second, the Republican coalition reflects older voters&amp;nbsp;while the Democratic coalition consists of&amp;nbsp;younger voters. Since Republicans gain their greatest support from those over 65 and Democrats those under 29, future electorates should be more Democratic. Third,&amp;nbsp;while an increasing number of voters are college-educated voters, the Republican share of this vote has declined over the past thirty years, particularly among college-educated women. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Because&amp;nbsp;the Republican electorate is shrinking, Republicans must grow the party or face continued losses at the national level. Over the past twenty years, no Republican presidential nominee&amp;nbsp;has won more than 285 electoral college votes and 50.8% of the vote. Currently, Democrats have an electoral college base of 257 votes to the Republican base of 191.&amp;nbsp; This difference means that Democrats&amp;nbsp;need only&amp;nbsp;win one or two swing states to prevail&amp;nbsp;while Republicans must win almost all of them. This&amp;nbsp;problem is compounded&amp;nbsp;for Republicans because&amp;nbsp;two current swing states have a naturally Democratic lean for 9 electoral votes, three swing states used to be Republican-leaning states, and the most likely two states to go purple due to demographic changes are the Republican states of Arizona and Texas, worth&amp;nbsp;a hefty 49 electoral votes.&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;So what are Republicans to do? First, Republicans must reach out to minorities, specifically Latinos and Asian-Americans.&amp;nbsp;Because Latinos now encompass 13% of the population, Republicans must support comprehensive immigration reform of some sort for Latinos; otherwise, they risk losing any credibility with&amp;nbsp;Latino voters.&amp;nbsp;Once the GOP embraces&amp;nbsp;a model of immigration reform, their&amp;nbsp;message of family values and social mobility may resonate more deeply. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Second, Republicans need to remain true to their values. Many wrongly claim&amp;nbsp;that Republicans must abandon social conservatism to appeal to women. Abandoning religious voters, a major component of the Republican base, would be political&amp;nbsp;suicide. Moreover, the gender gap is really a racial gap: Republicans win white women but lose minority women by huge margins. Minority women actually support social conservatism. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;Republicans must bring conservative values to bear on education, health care, and welfare policies to attract college-educated women and minorities.&amp;nbsp; Republicans need to support education policies that empower parents and promote competition to improve failing public schools, market-based health care reforms that empower individuals and their doctors&amp;nbsp;rather than bureaucrats, and promote social mobility through welfare policies that reward work and strong families and use civil society to promote personal transformation that welfare transfers cannot. To attract younger voters, Republicans need to transform an unaffordable industrial age entitlement system that will lower&amp;nbsp;future costs of living through higher taxes and higher interest rates to an information age system that empowers individuals.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;A revised version of this appeared in the Nov. 9 edition of The Jackson Sun
&amp;lt;p class=&quot;MsoNoSpacing&quot; style=&quot;text-indent:.5in&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=154</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=154</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:08:34 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Romney Gets Debate Reprieve</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[After Wednesday night&amp;rsquo;s debate, Republicans are jubilant and Democrats are disappointed. However, one debate does not change the course of the election and Romney must build upon his victory to have a chance to win.

Republicans desperately needed a strong performance from Romney. In spite of high, persistent unemployment, large deficits, and an unpopular health care law, Obama has led Romney in the polls all year.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Moreover, the Democrats barrage of campaign ads attacking Romney as an aloof, heartless businessman turned Romney&amp;rsquo;s business success into a negative. These attacks, and the failure to respond, also allowed the Democratic narrative of Romney to take hold in the public&amp;rsquo;s mind. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Wednesday night was a needed jolt to Republicans, as many wished this Mitt Romney arrived sooner. Today, Republicans are more excited, soft Republican voters feel more comfortable with Romney, fundraising should increase, and nervous congressional candidates no longer think Romney will hurt their chances of victory. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
However, Republicans should not start measuring the drapes for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;The overall trajectory of the election still slightly favors Democrats. Obama has led Romney in head-to-head polls all year, Obama&amp;rsquo;s presidential approval is nearing the magic 50% mark, and Obama is in a stronger position in the swing states. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
For Romney to win, several things must happen. First, Romney needs to see a bump in support in national polls but more specifically swing state polls.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Several experts have already moved Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin into the lean Democratic column. Romney needs to see these states move to the toss-up column or his ability to win the Electoral College becomes extremely difficult. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Second, Romney needs to see the number of undecided and persuadable voters either move to him or increase in number as they give Romney a second look.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;The network focus groups all showed that undecided voters liked what they saw in Romney but few said they were definitely voting for him. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Therefore, Romney needs to sustain his momentum.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;After Romney&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;no good, very bad&amp;rdquo; September, the debate has temporarily altered press coverage as Romney is being praised and Obama is on the defensive. Today, a jobs report comes out and if it shows the economy underperforming, as predicted, Obama will remain on the defensive. Next Thursday, Joe Biden, as the sitting Vice President, will be expected to do out-debate Paul Ryan. If Ryan does well, the momentum will continue until the second presidential debate.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;At that point, President Obama will do much, much better and probably slow or reverse any momentum Romney has. So Romney needs the momentum to solidify undecided and persuadable voters behind him before the Obama counterattack.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Fourth, Romney must find a message that resonates with the public as both campaigns flood the airwaves in the final month. In particular, he must find a message that increases his favorability ratings and convinces voters that Romney is better prepared to fix the economy than Obama. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Democratic expectations of a landslide this election was never really realistic. The economy, alone, guaranteed a close election.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;So we are probably back where we started &amp;ndash; with a close election that either candidate can win.&amp;nbsp;
A revised version of this article appeared in the Oct. 5 edition of The Jackson Sun
]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=153</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=153</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:57:09 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>What the Conventions Told Us</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Just as one&apos;s character gives insight into the kind of person one is, the political conventions provide insight into our politics.&amp;nbsp; The conventions over the past two weeks tells us three things: these were tofu conventions, character is king, and this is a base election.
First, we witnessed the first tofu conventions as the past two weeks were devoid of policy.&amp;nbsp; Watching the two conventions, I was reminded of the old Wendy&apos;s commercial when the old lady orders a hamburger, is given a huge bun with a small hamburger and asks &amp;quot;where&apos;s the beef?&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Well, policy is the &amp;quot;beef&amp;quot; of American politics. It is what we chew over and digest before we decide how to solve our problems. Yet, the conventions and primtetime speeches were largely silent on how to solve our problems. Watching these conventions, you might think that the economy is not struggling, the deficit and debt are not weighing down our future, entitlements are not bankrupting the nation, our schools are not teaching our students the skills they need, and social mobility is become more difficult.
I, and I guess many others, think that conventions are important in introducing the candidates and providing a vision but those biographies and visions are meaningless if you do not have policies to achieve your goals. At the Republican convention, Mitt Romney mentioned a five point plan to create 5 million new jobs with very little mention of how to do it. At the Democratic Convention, President Obama mentioned six goals for his second term with very little about how to do it.&amp;nbsp; If you can go to their websites, you can find the same general pledges with very little specifics.
Now some may argue that speeches are not the place to lay out your policies and explain why they would work. But past acceptance speeches tell a different story. In 2008, Obama made 12 policy pledges and McCain 11 pledges. While they did not go into great depth, they did attempt to explain how they would make our lives better and they were backed up with policies on websites and many times books. In 2004, President Bush and John Kerry made 18 policy pledges. President Bush even referred people to his website for more information.
What makes this even more problematic is that the parties actually know what they would do if elected. Neither party will tell you because they do not want to be attacked for their plans. Therefore, they continue to convince you that there will be easy choices by not telling us the real truth. Leadership requires politicians to lay out the stakes, the options, and the consequences so voters can realize the costs, weigh the evidence, and be prepared to make the difficult decisions. Our leaders have failed us in this regard in both parties.
Second, the conventions tell us character is king. In the 1990s during the Lewinsky affair, many people said that personal character does not matter in evaluating politicians. This belief was readily summed up with it&apos;s &amp;quot;Dow Jones not Paula Jones&amp;quot; that matters. These conventions and this campaign says otherwise.&amp;nbsp; For the past few months, Democrats have run ads saying that Romney is a heartless businessman who cannot be trusted with power in government. As a result, most of the GOP convention was meant to tell a story of a caring, empathatic Romney. Ann and Mitt Romney&apos;s speeches did this especially well. Even in the Democratic Convention, Michelle Obama and Joe Biden testified to Obama&apos;s character in the decisions that he made and that we should trust him.
Character is important for several reasons. First, we give tremendous power to presidents because of their power to send people to war and because of the impact their policies will have to hurt all of us, especially the disadvantaged.&amp;nbsp; We do not want them to abuse their power or choose to benefit privaste interests over the public interest. With a large deficit and debt that must be reigned in and an economy struggling, the next president will make decisions regarding Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and who wins and loses in the economy and as a result of government policy. Because they know this, and we know it implicitly, they try to convince us that they are like us and understand us so we will trust them to make these difficult decisions.
Second, we are in the midst of what Mark Halperin calls the &amp;quot;freak show.&amp;quot; In this polarized age, we do not say that our opponent&apos;s policies are wrong but that they are wrong due to a moral defect. We see this with attacks on Clinton&apos;s character, assertions that Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil or avenge possible attacks on his dad, and claims that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is a muslim.&amp;nbsp; The politics of personal destruction is meant not just to tar a person but their belief system. Consequently, politicians must spend substantial time defending their character to ward off attacks. The focus on attacks also means that politicians can put off the hard choices of their inaction.
Third, the conventions demonstrated that this is a base election. The old adage is that candidates run for the ideological extremes in the primary and then move to the center in the general election. These conventions have appealed very little to the independent voter but instead have been aimed at mobilizing the base.&amp;nbsp; If you are wondering where the beef is, it is in the red meat that the convention speakers gave their base.&amp;nbsp; Both sides contrasted their visions and candidates with each other and made straw man arguments to show the other side is wrong. The issues that they did bring up and designed to motivate their base.&amp;nbsp; Anyone who watched the non-network televised sessions of the conventions could see this. Just this past week, you saw the Democrats use abortion, voter identification, gay rights, health care, attacks on the wealthy, etc. to fire up their base.&amp;nbsp; If most centrists saw that, they would have been repelled by the convention.
The truth is that there are very few independents left. Most independents lean toward one party or the other and those independent leaners vote in very partisan manners. Therefore, both parties can win if they get more of their voters to the polls than the other party. This strategy leads campaigns to give their voters red meat to drive out their base. And as research shows, negative ads motivate partisans to vote.&amp;nbsp; With so few true independent who actually vote, the incentive is to tear down the opposition so your people vote against the opponent rather than for you.
The bad news for the Republicans is that Democrats seemed more fired up at their convention.The Republicans just seemed to be excited during the primetime hour shown on tv. The Democrats were excited throughout the entire evening schedule. Whether this is because Republicans are more reserved than Democrats or because Democrats love Obama and Republicans accept Romney, it seems clear that Democrats in the convention hall were more excited. If we extrapolate this to Democratic activists, then they may be more motivated to go out and work hard to elect Democrats. If this is a truly &amp;quot;base&amp;quot; election, Democrats have the advantage. ]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=152</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=152</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:15:45 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Reflections on the Democratic Convention</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Going into this convention, Democrats had several goals. First, they needed to have a good answer for the &amp;quot;are you better off now than you were four years ago&amp;quot; question. To their credit, they did the best they could. In answering this question, they took two approaches. First, VP Joe Biden provided the bumper sticker answer of &amp;quot;Osama bin Laden is dead and GM&amp;nbsp;is alive.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; This response is the unequivocal &amp;quot;yes, you are better off&amp;quot; by emphasizing a foreign policy and domestic policy success and symbolically (or literally in Joe Biden speak) communicating competence in the traditional &amp;quot;peace and prosperity&amp;quot; theme of most elections. Biden&apos;s formulation is good with partisans but not with anyone else because overall numbers on the economy and citizen assessment of it paints another picture.
The more effective argument is the one provided by Presidents Obama and Clinton where they say that Obama entered a bad situation, is making progress, and needs more time to finish the job.&amp;nbsp; This response recognizes the reality of how people see the economy and puts the best spin on Obama&apos;s time in office.&amp;nbsp; The emphasis on growth over the past two years and the sucess of GM helps support the case that GM is improving. And the best support for the argument is President Clinton&apos;s assertion that no president could have done any better. As a former president who presided over economic success, Clinton has the eexperience and expertise to speak on this. While some people will say that Clinton is a Democrat speaking in support of a Democrat, the fact that Clinton has approval above 60% indicates the many people admire him and will listen to him.
Second, Democrats needed to reconcile the Obama of 2008 with the Obama of the past four years.&amp;nbsp; Barack Obama ran and won the presidency based on his call for &amp;quot;hope and change&amp;quot; and moving toward a postpartisan era where ideology matters less.&amp;nbsp; Realizing that most people are disappointed with him, Obama started off on the right foot acknowledging the people&apos;s disappointement and mentioning how he was the candidate of hope and the difficulties that the nation went through dampended that. In short, he conceded that things did not work out as planned and you needed to give him another chance because the alternative is worse. At the end, he tried to restore his lost luster by telling the convention that the 2008 election was not about him but about them because &amp;quot;you were the change&amp;quot; and mentioning how policies he adopted helped several a small child get health care, someone go to med school, and the child of an illegal immigrant not be deproted, and exhorting people to continue the change they fought for.
The problem is that one speech makes it hard to overcome a 4 year record of relentless partisanship as his partisan agenda in his first two years  which alienated those Republicans who wanted to work with him, and  emboldened those who had no desire to work with him. Then over the past  two years, he made little effort to reach out to the Republicans and  when he was close to a deal with Speaker Boehner for a grand bargain on  the deficit, he ruined it by calling for more taxes when they were just  about at a deal. For voters familiar with his record, he gave no indication of how he would be different in the next four years.
Third, the Democrats had to do a good job of defining the GOP&apos;s policies.&amp;nbsp; The Republicans made a mistake at their convention by focusing on biography and less on policy.&amp;nbsp; While people had doubts about Romney, he also needed to be able to show that he had a plan to get America on the right path.&amp;nbsp; The Democrats could use their convention to define Romney&apos;s policies in such a way as to make him and his policies unacceptable. The Democrats did their best at this claiming that Republicans wanted to raise taxes on the Middle Class, were not concerned with the deficit, vouherize Medicare and make it go bankrupt, etc. The biggest problem is that all the attacks are false as most fact checkers have pointed out.
Fourth, Obama needed to provide a compelling vision for the next four years.&amp;nbsp; Obama does not want to run on the past so he needs to run on the future. That is why he spoke so often in his speech about &amp;quot;the choice&amp;quot; between two parties, two men, and two visions. And the vision that he painted was attractive. However, he was short on details about how to attain it.&amp;nbsp; He made few promises but instead set goals.&amp;nbsp; The goals are basically the same ones from 4 years ago but he had few specifics about how to get there. Overall, most everyone would agree with his goals but the devil is in the details and the campaign is short on those. For someone who said at the beginning that we need &amp;quot;bold, persistent experimentation,&amp;quot; he provided no examples.
Whether the Democratic convention achieved these goals is questionable. However, the big test of it success will be poll numbers. Forget the bump, if one occurs. Look at the polls the week of Sept. 17. If Obama is in the lead, he had a success. If behind, he failed. If tied (most likely), we are in for a close race.]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=151</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=151</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:37:37 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Was the Convention Enough for Romney?</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;Did the Republican Convention do what Mitt Romney needed it to do? Republicans went into the convention with three goals. They succeeded with two. Whether that is enough, time will tell.
First, they needed to prove that President Obama needed to be fired. This was the easy task of the convention and the GOP was successful. The GOP even did a good job of making it easy for voters to fire (&amp;quot;not a bad man, just a bad president&amp;quot;).&amp;nbsp;
Second, the convention wanted to humanize Mitt Romney after the deluge of personal attacks the Obama campaign and Democratic groups have run. This they had good success with this week. Ann Romney, the film before the 9pm hour last night, and other testimonials, as well as Mitt&apos;s own speech (desire to spend one more day with kids, and knowledge of how his mother found out his father died) countered the Democratic narrative of the heartless businessman. The potential problem is that there is no one story that sticks with you so that when the attacks come, as they inevitably will, voters will remember the story to counter the attack.&amp;nbsp;
Third, the convention wanted to prove that the nation should hire Romney. This the convention failed at. &amp;nbsp;Tuesday and Wednesday nights were dedicated to explaining the problems with Obama which left the vision thing to Romney. Like the previous speakers, Romney spoke primarily in platitudes. He did not get to his 5 point plan until the end of the speech. &amp;nbsp;Compared to past presidential nominee acceptance speeches, Romney&apos;s speech was almost devoid of policy content. How much this matters is up to debate? I would think that voters would want to hear how the candidate and party would help them. And when you consider that your opponent&apos;s theme is &amp;quot;Forward,&amp;quot; there may be an even greater reason to emphasize that you have specific plans to move the nation forward.&amp;nbsp;
Fourth, there is a question whether people will get Romney&apos;s message. The first part of the convention was overshadowed by Hurricane Isaac and today&apos;s coverage is split between Romney and Clint Eastwood. The GOP hoped that all people would talk about today is Romney and his speech. Instead, the message is split between Romney, Eastwood, and process stories about how this could occur. Other than mixed messages, the problem is that the national networks started with the Eastwood speech which, while appealing to Republicans, might turn off independent voters. On the other hand as Jonah Goldberg points out, many people who did not hear Eastwood&apos;s speech will search for it and will hear an American Icon explaining why Obama should be fired. That may work in Romney&apos;s favor.&amp;nbsp;
Finally, the success of the convention will not really be known until mid-September. &amp;nbsp;Conventions typically have a bounce or spike in public support. The challenger&apos;s convention bounce is usually larger than the incumbent&apos;s because the challenger is less well-known. Typically, the bounce dissipates after a week one way or the other. The question here is how the Democrats use their convention and will they continue to hammer and define Romney and his policies. Since the GOP Convention was devois of policy, it allows Democrats to define GOP policy in less favorable terms. &amp;nbsp;After a week after the Democratic convention, we can look at polls and see where everyone is located. &amp;nbsp;If Mitt is tied or slightly ahead, he is in good shape. If he is behind, he probably missed a golden opportunity at the convention. That just puts more pressure on Romney in the debates.]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=150</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=150</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:08:06 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Party Convention Could Be a Pivot Point</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[While party conventions are no longer consequential to selecting nominees, conventions still play an important role in the campaign.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;As we transition from the Republican to the Democratic convention, here are some metrics to judge the success of both conventions.

First, will voters consider Mitt Romney an acceptable alternative? After three-and-a-half years, most people are dissatisfied with President Obama&amp;rsquo;s leadership but unconvinced Romney is the answer. This uneasiness is a combination of Democratic ads demonizing Romney and Romney not trying to define himself.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;The good news for Romney is that many people have not paid much attention and he can use the convention to reintroduce himself to voters as a problem solver at Bain Capital, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and the Massachusetts Governorship to show he is better suited to fix the economy. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
At the same time, Ann Romney and others will tell stories to make Romney more likeable and empathetic by humanizing him as the family man, caring church leader, and Good Samaritan. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Meanwhile, Democrats will continue to define Romney as unprincipled, aloof, heartless businessman.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;Moreover, they will attempt to use Romney&amp;rsquo;s selection of Paul Ryan as Vice President to tie him to unpopular Congressional Republicans and paint Romney as an extremist who threatens the social safety net. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
In the end, Romney doesn&amp;rsquo;t have to be the most well-liked candidate. As the Republican primary demonstrated, Romney just needs to be acceptable. &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Second, whose base will leave the convention more fired up? This election is primarily a base election as the electorate is so closely divided between the parties.&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;In our polarized political environment, a party can win if more of their partisans show up on election day. Thus, both parties will throw their supporters red meat to mobilize activists to work hard to insure a high turnout.&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Third, whose party will appeal to swing voters more?&amp;lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;According to a recent &amp;lt;i style=&quot;mso-bidi-font-style:normal&quot;&amp;rt;Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation poll, only 5% of voters are truly independent and only a quarter of those will probably vote. But in a close election, that small group matters. Will Republicans be able to make Obama&amp;rsquo;s performance the issue while not scaring off these independents over spending cuts and Medicare reform? Will Democrats be able to emphasize popular aspects of their proposals like education spending and ending pre-existing conditions for insurance without the baggage associated with the health insurance mandate and large deficits? &amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;
Fourth, will Obama regain the magic of 2008 and remind voters why they fell in love with him originally? So far, Obama has replaced hope and change with fear and loathing and turned from a uniter into a divider. Can he regain his &amp;ldquo;postpartisan&amp;rdquo; reputation to appeal to those swing voters who truly believe in bipartisanship? Can he reenergize Latinos upset about his deportations and idealistic young people turned off by his partisanship so they vote in equal numbers this year as they did in 2008?

Finally, can Romney survive next week&amp;rsquo;s attacks and prolong his convention bounce? The challenger is less well-known which means he has the greater potential to grow his support. But he is also less well-defined and can be defined by his opponent. If Romney is tied with Obama or slightly ahead by mid-September, he survived and is in good shape heading toward the election. If not, Romney&amp;rsquo;s road to victory becomes more difficult.
&amp;lt;o:p&amp;rt;This column originally appeared in the Aug. 31 edition of The Jackson Sun&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/o:p&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=149</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=149</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:58:45 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Mixed Messages: Reflections on Day 1 of the GOP Convention</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Day 1 of the GOP Convention sent a mixed message and that is not good for Republicans. &amp;nbsp;The goals of the convention are (1) define Mitt Romney as a likable, caring, empathetic figure who understands the plight of everyday people; (2) prove Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix the economy; (3) demonstrate Romney-Ryan is a better alternative than Obama-Biden. &amp;nbsp;Day 1 failed that test as Republican messaging was all over the place which is problematic in that the convention is competing with Hurricane Isaac. &amp;nbsp;With the media covering two big events, there will be less time to talk about the convention. The saving grace of the GOP is that the media will focus primarily on Ann Romney&apos;s speech which was the best one during the prime time coverage. However, Ann Romney did not sell Mitt like she needed to do.&amp;nbsp;
Ann Romney&apos;s primary goal was to define Mitt Romney as a likable, caring, and empathetic individual so the Democratic attacks that attempt to define Romney as a heartless businessman don&apos;t stick. &amp;nbsp;Even after $110 million in negative advertising against him, a CBS News poll shows that 30% of Americans don&apos;t have an opinion of Romney which means the Romney campaign can gain control over his narrative. Ann Romney&apos;s speech was a great opportunity to do this. However, I think that she fell short. &amp;nbsp;While she gave a great speech, she did not personalize Romney enough. She made assertions that Romney is a great guy, you should get to know him, and he will not let you down but she did not tell any stories to demonstrate the qualities she testified to. &amp;nbsp;The fact that they have a &amp;quot;real marriage&amp;quot; and that he will not brag about helping others is good but I don&apos;t know any more about Mitt Romney than before the speech. There is no story about helping her cope with MS or breast cancer, no story about helping others, no story of &amp;quot;moving heaven and earth,&amp;quot; no story about his &amp;quot;working harder.&amp;quot; In short, there is no story that I or anyone else will remember that humanizes him and will counter Democrats demonizing attacks. &amp;nbsp;
And the shame of all this is that there are stories that can humanize him whether it is his reaction after a car crash while on his Mormon mission, his temporarily closing down Bain to search for a partner&apos;s daughter, his interventions with church members in the Boston area, and many more. I totally understand her point about not receiving his reward on earth for helping people but Republicans need to successfully define Romney or the Democrats will.&amp;nbsp;
Chris Christie&apos;s keynote address continued the mixed message in three ways. First, the address was more about Christie than about Mitt Romney. As most commentators have mentioned, it took Christie almost 20 minutes to mention Mitt Romney. &amp;nbsp;Even at the end when he called people to &amp;quot;stand up,&amp;quot; he called them to stand up with him and not with Mitt Romney. Then throughout the speech, he kept the speech on the abstract level as he contrasted what Republicans believe with what Democrats believe without connecting the beliefs with Romney nor Obama. And after hearing the speech, I am not sure what the GOP would do if elected. I know their principles but I still don&apos;t know the policies the party will pursue. &amp;nbsp;On this level, he failed in goals two and three mentioned earlier. &amp;nbsp;The keynote address is meant to sell the party and the nominee. Christie&apos;s speech sold the party and Chris Christie.&amp;nbsp;
Second, Ann Romney said that she was going to talk about love then Christie turned around and said that it was better to be respected than loved. To have one speaker contradict the other speaker creates dissonance in the minds of viewers.&amp;nbsp;
The second way Christie&apos;s keynote address mixed the message was in his pairing with Ann Romney at the 9pm hour and the tone. Ann Romney did the soft sell and Christie did the hard sell. Their speeches struck me less as ying and yang complementing each other and more like oil and water not mixing. &amp;nbsp;Part of this was the different goals of the two speakers and part of it was Christie not focusing on Mitt Romney. But the other major factor is the tone. &amp;nbsp;If the public is anything like my students, the women zoned Christie out while the guys loved it. &amp;nbsp;The women gushed about how great Ann Romney is while the guys compared Christie to a pre-game football speech making you want to break through a wall. &amp;nbsp;With only one hour to reach the nation, half of those watching may have tuned out and that is the half that the party has the most trouble with. &amp;nbsp;
If you watched the entire proceedings last night, the one consistent message was leadership. &amp;nbsp;Specifically, Republicans defined leadership as truthfully identifying problems and dealing with them regardless of the political consequences. You saw this with Chris Christie&apos;s keynote address but also when the governors spoke. Governors John Kasich (R-OH), Scott Walker (R-WI), and Nikke Haley (R-SC) made convincing cases that they identified a problem and took on the problem regardless of the consequences (and the political consequences for Kasich and Walker were real) by addressing public employee benefits that led to fights against government employee unions, fighting Obama&apos;s NLRB board preventing a Boeing plant being built in SC, and addressing illegal immigration when the Administration would not. Even Ann Romney contributed to this theme as she talked about Mitt Romney attending law school and business school at the same time, working hard to build a business, working to save scandal-tarred 2002 Olympics, and his willingness to &amp;quot;move heaven and earth&amp;quot; to improve the country. All these addresses hit an important theme of Obama&apos;s &amp;quot;absentee leadership.&amp;quot; &amp;nbsp;The attack would have been more effective if they did a better job of connecting it to national issues, specifically economic issues, that most people are concerned with and connecting with the Obama Administration&apos;s failures.&amp;nbsp;
So while the GOP did not have a great night, the good news is that they have another chance tonight. With Paul Ryan speaking tonight and Mitt Romney tomorrow, they should have a larger tv audience to make their case to elect the Romney-Ryan ticket.
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=148</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=148</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:30:13 CST</pubDate>
    </item></channel>
</rss>

