Politicians, Voters, and Sticking to Principle

Voters often tell their elected officials that they want them to "just get things done."  Voters want these politicians to solve the problems facing the country and fix the problems in government.  Also, voters want their elected officials to be principled.  Politicians should not compromise their beliefs.  Tension lies in these two desires.  We want our politicians to work together without compromising, to stand on principle while passing legislation.  In the US, legislation does not get passed without compromise.  This is by design.  Our Founders intentionally designed a system where action (especially in the legislative branch) requires a large consensus.  So, we have a situation in the US where politicians are often found having to explain to their voters why they seek a compromise with members of the other party.  Here are two examples:

During the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary season, candidates often faced questions from angry Democrats who didn't understand why we still had troops in Iraq, or did not have health care reform, even though the Democrats controlled Congress.  Joe Biden was the most outspoken in trying to educate voters on this matter.  He had to explained that you still needed Republican support to pass legislation.  Here is a clip from one of the debates:



More recently, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) co-wrote an editorial with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in the New York Times about a bi-partisan compromise on energy policy.  The bill would increase offshore drilling and nuclear power to decrease our dependence on foreign oil (something Republicans want), and it would decrease carbon emissions through a cap and trade system (something Democrats want).  At a town hall meeting after the editorial, Graham was confronted by angry voters who wanted to know "why do you think it is necessary to get in bed with John Kerry?"  These voters wanted Graham to stand on principle and not go along with any compromise bill, but Graham recognized that this would mean not doing anything.  In his reply, he states, "what I’ve tried to do is find a way to move the ball forward as our nation is beginning to lag. And unless you make all the Democrats go away, somebody’s got to fix this country’s problems in a bipartisan manner.”  Here is the full clip:



Neither Biden or Graham are compromising their principles.  In fact, they are using compromise to advance their principles.  They realize that it is better to gain something than nothing.  So, do you want politicians that will be uncompromising and and not vote for any bill that includes something they don't like, or do you want politicians to work together to solve our nations problems and "get things done"?  Because, you can't have both.

Related Posts:

Change and Bipartisanship

Change vs Bipartisanship and the Stimulus Bill

Change vs Bipartisanship on SNL

Top 5: Reasons Obama Should Not Wage War with Fox News

1.  It diminishes Obama's efforts to rise above partisanship.

As a candidate, Obama spoke often about putting aside partisan differences to do what is right for the country. He was going to listen to all points of view. This approach heightened his appeal, and helped him win the election. When he criticizes Fox News for having a conservative bias, while hosting Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow in the White House, he is pushing partisanship, not rising above it. Olbermann and Maddow have shows on MSNBC with a style similar to Fox's prime time shows hosted by Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. The only difference is they present a liberal, rather than conservative, point of view. All four of these shows are sensationalistic and divisive. If Obama really wanted to show that he is a president that seeks to bring the country together, he could have criticized all four, rather than singling out O'Reilly and Beck while acting chummy with Olbermann and Maddow.

2.  Obama has more important things to do.

Obama wants to pass major reforms in health care, climate change, and immigration. Iran and North Korea could be developing nuclear weapons. Afghanistan and Pakistan have radical Muslims threatening to take over their countries. Many Americans must be wondering why Obama is bothering with Fox News when he has so much else on his plate. This battle with Fox News makes Obama appear to have lost his focus on what is really important.

3.  Obama needs Fox News viewer's help to accomplish his goals.

To pass a health care reform package, one of Obama's biggest obstacles are blue-dog, or conservative, Democrats in the Senate. Plus, Obama will need Republican support for some issues where he will meet resistance in his own party, such as Afghanistan and education reform.  These Congressmembers represent states and districts with a lot of conservative voters. Chances are, a lot of these voters watch Fox News. He should be doing more interviews with Fox News, in order to speak to these voters, rather than boycotting Fox News. Instead of getting a chance to hear Obama defend his positions, these voters are getting news about Obama boycotting Fox News on Fox News.  It is unlikely that they will hear this story presented in a way that is friendly to the White House's point of view. Indeed, even the liberal networks have been highly critical of the White House's moves (see reason 5).

4.  It is a battle Obama cannot win.

Presidents usually enter office with the belief that they can control press coverage, but after fruitless efforts, discover they cannot. As Lawrence R. Jacobs (2010) points out, this overconfidence is common with new presidents and results in two “surprises.”  First, they fail to recognize that battling the press will only increase coverage of critics and "the unattractive business of strategizing."  "Presidents who choose to become communications warriors invariably inflict political damage on themselves" (Jacobs 2010, 258).

Second, presidential overconfidence in their ability to control press coverage leads them to reach for policies that are out of the mainstream. “White House hubris in its ability to control information encourages the executive to embrace policy initiatives that reach well beyond what the public and legislators are willing to accept” (Jacobs 2010, 258). This may explain why Obama is having difficulties with health care reform.

Taking on Fox News has only served to stimulate news about taking on Fox News. Obama should want the other news organizations to be reporting on his policy initiatives, rather than a petty fight with a news organization. White House attacks will not discourage anyone from watching Fox News. If anything, his attacks will stimulate interest among those who want to see what all the fuss is about and increase viewership of Fox News.

5.  When Obama goes too far, the media will defend their own.

If Obama thought that the other news networks would defend, or even aid, his efforts to marginalize Fox News simply because they have a liberal bias, he was wrong. Reporters cherish their access to government and freedom to report the news more than their ideological bias. When the Treasury Department tried to exclude Fox News from being able to interview the White House “pay czar,” all the other networks refused to conduct an interview unless Fox News was included. It did not matter at that point that all the other networks have a liberal bias and Fox News has a conservative bias. What was most important to these networks was that if this White House could exclude Fox News, a future White House could exclude them. News organizations will show solidarity when their professional interests are under siege. An ABC News reporter even referred to Fox News as a “sister organization” after this incident. This was all bad news for Obama, because now he appears authoritarian and disrespectful of freedom of the press, and no one likes to see that in a president.


Work Cited:

Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2010. “The Presidency and the Press: The Paradox of the White House Communications War.” In Michael Nelson (Ed.), The Presidency and the Political System, 9th Ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Nelson, Michael. 2010. The Presidency and the Political System, 9th Ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Senator Coburn, the NSF, and the Nobel Prize in Economics

I have frequently been a fan of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). He has been a strong proponent of earmark reform, and opposed much of the pork-barrel spending in Congress. He correctly points out that these spending projects are a source of much corruption in Congress. He has also been principled in this fight by not seeking earmarks for his own state. Recently, however, he has set his sights on an unworthy cause. Last week, Coburn introduced an appropriations bill amendment that would cut all funding for political science research from the National Science Foundation.

In a statement on his proposed amendment he writes,

When Americans think of the National Science Foundation, they think of cross-cutting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Most would be surprised to hear that the agency spent $91.3 million over the last 10 years on political “science” and $325 million last year alone on social studies and economics.

By putting science in quotes, Coburn is indicating that he doesn't think political science is real science. Only the physical sciences are real science and worthy of funding, he suggests.  Physical science funding, “can yield real improvements in the lives of everyone.” Political science research cannot do that, apparently, because political scientists research, “citizenship, government, and politics.” Imagine, for a moment, a world that did not have citizenship, government, and politics and you should grasp the absurdity of this statement. The people who devote research to such an important part of our lives are certainly as worthy of government funding as the physical sciences.  The fact that this statement comes from someone devoted to public service in government and politics makes it even more confounding. Why would Coburn devote his life to citizenship, government, and politics if he thought they did not “yield real improvements in the lives of everyone”?  As I noted with his devotion to earmark reform, Coburn wants to improve how government functions.  He should want to increase funding, therefore, for research that helps us understand how to make government better.

Ironically, this week brought news that a political scientist has won a Nobel Prize in economics for research that was partially funded by...(drum roll)...the National Science Foundation! Dr. Elinor Ostrom won the prize for research that shows how the tragedy of the commons (a common political science problem) is important for understanding economics. Here is a clip of her explaining some of the basis of her research.

The Coburn amendment will be voted on sometime later this week. You can watch a clip of him introducing the amendment on the Senate floor (where he compares the funding to waterboarding our kids), with a rebuttal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), here.  Just fast forward to the 131 minute mark.  You can sign a petition asking your Senators to oppose the amendment here.

I don't think the amendment has much chance of passage. Coburn's amendments rarely pass. But, I think political scientists should consider this a wake-up call.  We need to do a better job of explaining the importance of our research to the general public. For my part, I will try to use this blog more often for that purpose.

More Thoughts on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

I was interviewed recently about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize by WTAP and the Marietta Times. Since those interviews were edited, I wanted to share a more thorough account of my thoughts on the event, and some other reactions from the media and blogosphere.

As many have already noted, the choice of Obama by the Nobel Committee was a big surprise. This reaction is fairly universal. Even many of Obama's supporters, and Obama himself, seemed perplexed at the decision. For instance, Ruth Marcus, a liberal Obama supporter, said on the News Hour, "the Nobel Peace Prize isn't like peewee soccer, where everybody gets a nice trophy for trying hard and being part of the team." Plus, Saturday Night Live had lampooned Obama less than a week prior to the announcement for not having any major accomplishments.

The choice seems especially odd in light of the fact that Obama is a war time president. He has sent more troops to Afghanistan, as he promised he would in the campaign, and if he accepts his general's recommendations, will send another 40,000 troops.

Much like the Olympic Committee's decision to pass on Chicago, I don't place any blame on Obama for this happening, but it makes Obama look bad, nonetheless. While the Nobel Committee said they were showing support for Obama's goals, it ironically made those goals more difficult to achieve. Many commentators have agreed with my earlier assessment that this will hurt more than help Obama. This Week in Race argues, for instance, that being honored by "foreigners" may perpetuate a stereotype of Obama as "other," un-American, or unpatriotic.

Some, such as David Brooks on the Newshour or Ross Douthat in the New York Times, have suggested that Obama should have turned down the committee's offer. In his speech accepting the prize, Obama made of point of saying, "I WILL accept this offer," with emphasis on the word "will". This suggests to me that he had considered saying "no thanks" to the committee. If my instincts are correct, this would be an astonishing recognition of the dubious nature of the Committee's choice. I agree with Douthat that turning down the committee would have been a boon for his popularity on the domestic front.

The Nobel Committee continues to erode their own credibility in their choices. If committee members want to use the prize to influence global opinion, as they say they do, they should make choices that most agree are well deserved, and that brings attention to those who really need it. To help Obama achieve his goals, for example, the Nobel Committee could have chosen the Iranian protesters. This may have helped Obama and the world community to stop the Iranians from enriching uranium--an accomplishment certainly worthy of a peace prize.

Did Obama Lie?

By now you have heard about Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupting President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech before Congress on health care by shouting "you lie!" Much has been written about the lack of comity displayed by Wilson. While this is an important discussion, less has been said about whether the charges are actually true.

This is what Obama said before Wilson's outburst: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false." So, what led Wilson to claim that Obama was lying? Wilson sits on a committee that has been working on the details of the primary (there is more than one) House version of a health care reform bill. There is a provision in that bill that states no illegal immigrants will be eligible for health insurance under the new program, but contains nothing to enforce this provision. To Wilson, a law without a mechanism for enforcement is as useless as no law at all. Charles Krauthammer makes this point also in an editorial for the Washington Post. He writes, "the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in." So, there is an important detail in the bill that should not be overlooked. But, the larger question is, should members accuse each other of lying when they have disagreements over fine details. If this became customary, Congress would get bogged down in shouting matches, and have even more difficulty with the business of governing.

Wilson and Krauthammer missed something else important, however, when they accused the president of being dishonest--there was nothing in the speech to indicate that Obama was talking about the bill in Wilson's committee, or any committee for that matter. He was presenting his plan, or what he would like to see in the final bill, to Congress. This should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to the words of the speech. How can he lie about what is in his own plan? If Wilson agrees with the president that a new health insurance plan should not be available to undocumented workers, he should have applauded that part of his speech, rather than hurl a slanderous charge.

Wilson could have avoided unnecessary embarrassment if he would have simply paid attention to what Obama was actually saying. Indeed, politicians in general need to do better at listening to their political opponents. Obama is also guilty in this regard. In a previous post, I pointed out how Obama wrongly accused the head of the National Right to Life Committee of lying. And more recently, he claimed that those who raise concerns that the new health care plan would pay for abortions with government funds are "bearing false witness" (a phrase from the 10 Commandments which means "lying"). Obama should have taken the time to read what those who raise these concerns are actually saying. Opponents acknowledge that there is nothing in the bill specifically stating that abortions would be paid for (a point Obama makes often in his defense), but worry that without a provision specifically excluding abortions, abortions may end up as part of the services provided (by executive order, for instance). A fine detail, to be sure. But, as in Wilson's case, politicians should not accuse each other of lying simply for having disagreements over fine details.

Advice for Freshmen

The New York Times has a series of articles written by professors who "have been there awhile," offering advice to those who have just started college. They all offer some excellent advice. Here are a few of my favorite nuggets of wisdom from these articles:

• "take a composition course...if you can't [write] you can't do anything." -Stanley Fish
• "What the most successful college students do, in my experience, is cut through the clutter of jargons, methods and ideological differences to locate the common practices of argument and analysis hidden behind it all. " -Gerald Graff
• "More than ever in this time of economic troubles and societal change, entering upon an undergraduate education should be a voyage away from visual overstimulation into deep, sustained reading of what is most worth absorbing and understanding: the books that survive all ideological fashions." -Harold Bloom
• "Do ask questions if you don’t understand the professor’s point. Do not, however, ask any of the following: 'Will this be on the test?' 'Does grammar count?' 'Do we have to read the whole chapter?' 'Can I turn in my paper late?'" -Carol Berkin
• "Learn to write well." -Gary Wills
• "It’s easy to think that college classes are mainly about preparing you for a job. But remember: this may be the one time in your life when you have a chance to think about the whole of your life, not just your job." -Martha Nussbaum
• "Try to read a good newspaper every day — at bedtime or at breakfast or when you take a break in the afternoon.... A great newspaper will help you in the classroom — and it will be your conduit to the real world outside the classroom. Become addicted." -James MacGregor Burns
• "Fall in love! Not with that attractive person sitting three rows in front of you in calculus class, but with an intellectual vision of the future you probably can’t even imagine at the moment. " -Nancy Hopkins
• "The first thing freshmen should know is that college is never what one expects. " -Steven Weinberg

Huckabee and Stewart Debate Nicely, but Confuse, on Abortion

Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart recently debated abortion on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Huckabee is pro-life, while Stewart is pro-choice (though he expressed deep ambivalence about the issue at the end of the interview).

Huckabee and Stewart demonstrated that, even on this emotionally charged topic, the two sides can speak to each other in a respectful manner. I congratulate them. I wish more politicians and political activists would follow their example.

On the other hand, towards the end of the interview, both Huckabee and Stewart demonstrated ignorance on the issues of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryonic stem cell research. I fear that this part of the interview only served to further confuse a public that is already deeply ignorant about these topics.

Huckabee thought Stewart was asking about embryonic stem cell research after Stewart asked him about IVF, as if the two are the same thing. Then, Stewart said that IVF would not be possible without embryonic stem-cell research (to which Huckabee nodded as if he agreed). Neither of these are true.

For couples who have difficulty getting pregnant, IVF is a method used to create a human embryo outside the womb, which are then implanted in the womb. In the US, many embryos are created to increase the chances that a viable embryo is created. This leads to many leftover embryos that are not implanted, but are kept frozen.

Embryonic stem cell research uses the stem cells of these leftover embryos to try to find cures for disease. The embryos are destroyed when these stem cells are harvested. This research did not lead to IVF, as Stewart suggests. The only connection is that the embryos created from IVF are used in the research. IVF is not necessary for embryonic stem cell research, however. Conceivably, one could harvest eggs and sperm from donors to create human embryos for research, or clone a human embryo for research (sometimes called therapeutic cloning).

Here is the interview in three parts. The part where they get confusing is in the third video.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran