<?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 2012 Union University</copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:02:47 CST</lastBuildDate>
		<atom:link href="http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog-rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
	<title>Newt Lacks Character to be President</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[In speaking about the presidency in 1964, Richard Nixon said, &amp;quot;With all the power the president has, the most important thing to bear in mind is this: You must not give power to a man, unless above everything, he has character.&amp;quot;
Unfortunately, Nixon did not learn his own lesson, but we can. As Republicans choose a nominee, I hope they realize Newt Gingrich lacks the character to be president.
For many Republicans, Gingrich is a smart, visionary, articulate conservative ready to battle President Obama and liberalism to restore conservative values in America. Believing in redemption, they forgive his unfaithfulness to his first two wives because he has repented. But as one commentator said, &amp;quot;Repentance may get you into heaven but doesn&apos;t qualify you for the White House,&amp;quot; because Gingrich&apos;s adultery reflects deeper character flaws that, if they consume a president, could lead to disastrous results.
When examining any candidate&apos;s character, we have to remember that character is more than just having high moral standards. According to the MacMillan Dictionary, character is &amp;quot;the qualities that make up someone&apos;s personality.&amp;quot; The qualities are formed by our upbringing, major life experiences and daily habits of life and combine to influence who we are, our priorities, our view of life, others and how the world works, etc. And character, once formed, tends to persist.
So what qualities do we see in Gingrich? We see an idea factory, but also an impulsiveness that leads to three bad ideas (e.g., moon colony) for every good idea because he does not think them through. We see vision but no discipline to implement it, like creating a campaign organization and getting on the ballot in key states.
We see intelligence but also narcissism when he claims only he can defeat President Obama when between 50-60 percent of Americans have unfavorable views of him. As the debates and speeches show, his arrogance breeds contempt for those who challenge him.
We see perseverance through adversity, but his drive seems to flow more out of personal animosity, as seen in his vendetta against Mitt Romney for reminding voters of Gingrich&apos;s political baggage.
Gingrich has spoken of transforming America for years, but he shows no discernment in identifying when times demand transformation versus incremental change. We see someone able to voice conservative dissatisfaction with government, but who shows little integrity railing against Washington elites after serving as speaker, running think tanks in Washington and claiming Fannie Mae hired him as a &amp;quot;historian.&amp;quot;
So when we look at Gingrich, adultery is not the character flaw. Rather, adultery is one of the results of an undisciplined, arrogant, abrasive, petulant individual with poor judgment.
Are these the qualities you want in a president who makes life-and-death and life-altering decision every day, whether in the use of military force, cutting benefits to reduce the deficit, restoring our economy and appointing prosecutors, judges and regulators? Are these the characteristics of a president able to promote a vision for America and build a domestic and international coalition to achieve it?
There is no perfect candidate. All have flaws, and we need to consider those when making voting decisions. However, Newt&apos;s character flaws are too great.
This column originally appeared in the Feb. 3rd edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=139</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=139</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:02:47 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Santorum Gets His Chance</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[On Wednesday morning, I turned on the television to see the final results of the Iowa caucuses. When the screen revealed that Rick Santorum had nearly tied Mitt Romney for first place, my wife moaned in near despair, &amp;quot;Who is Rick Santorum?&amp;quot;
There are many Americans who share her plight. Anyone who is not a political junkie and has tried to follow the Republican Party nominating contest could scarcely be faulted for protesting the difficulty of doing so. Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry (previously a name prominent only in Texas) and Herman Cain have all waxed and waned. When Newt Gingrich rocketed into the lead (only to fall back like the others), many probably expressed relief simply to see a politician in the action with whom they were familiar.
Rick Santorum is the former two-term U.S. senator and former congressman from Pennsylvania. He successfully won election to the House of Representatives in a heavily Democratic district and ultimately gained a 12-year stay in the Senate as Arlen Specter&apos;s junior partner. Though Santorum endorsed Specter and helped him gain reelection in 2004, he is much more conservative than the Machiavellian Specter, who switched parties in 2010 and was defeated for re-election.
Santorum has a reputation as a strong social conservative and traditional Catholic. He is the author of one book, &amp;quot;It Takes a Family,&amp;quot; which was intended as a rebuttal of sorts to Hillary Clinton&apos;s &amp;quot;It Takes a Village.&amp;quot;
Part of the reason Santorum is relatively unknown is that he lost his seat in 2006 to Bob Casey Jr. by a whopping 18 points as Democrats trounced Republicans. Casey, the namesake of a popular former governor of the state, smartly rode the natural momentum of the year and left Santorum debating an empty chair. The loss severely eroded the senator&apos;s reputation as a candidate who could win in swing states.
Now, with what is effectively a win in Iowa, Santorum may become more well known than he ever was in the past. One big question is whether he will do well in Iowa only to go nowhere due to a lack of funds and organization. And even if the money materializes, will he simply drift back to earth as so many other challengers to Romney have done?
The odds are against him, but Santorum has an interesting appeal. He is a social conservative with a message of interest to working people in America. His economic plan emphasizes a strategy to maintain and expand the manufacturing base. As a Catholic son of the Rust Belt, he has the potential to build a broad coalition.
On the other hand, he is arguably the most hated candidate by the gay rights lobby for his blunt opposition to both gay marriage and adoption. Those commitments alone practically guarantee extremely negative treatment for his campaign from cultural elites in the media and entertainment industries.
Santorum has been largely overlooked so far as he stood at the edge of the podium in debates, dismissed due to low poll numbers. When he was noticed, it was usually because he complained about how few questions he was getting. Sen. Santorum, the stage is yours for at least the next several news cycles. We shall see what you can do with it.
This column originally appeared in the January 6 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=138</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=138</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:17:28 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Medicare Reform Gains Support</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;lt;span style=&quot;line-height: 115%; font-size: 11pt&quot;&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Compromise is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. these days. In fact, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refuses to even say the word. Yet, compromise is integral to our constitutional system. The Founders created a system whereby members of the House, Senate, and Presidency would represent different constituencies and serve different terms to insure they would have different interests. For any bill to pass, a majority of districts and states and the nation would have to compromise to pass a law.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The key to compromise though is selling the deal. As satirist Ambrose Bierce wrote, a compromise is &amp;ldquo;an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Last Friday, conservative Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and liberal Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced a compromise that could be the template for future Medicare reform that both sides can potentially view as a win-win.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The proposal protects traditional Medicare, which currently pays for each treatment no matter what, for all seniors over 55. But beginning in 2022, all seniors will have the option of either traditional Medicare or a voucher to buy private health insurance as long as it provides the same benefits as Medicare. The voucher will be indexed to GDP growth plus 1% and poorer seniors will receive more generous vouchers. Competition and more cost conscious consumers should lead to lower costs which will save money. Furthermore, Medicare spending will be capped, presumably at a level equal to the number of vouchers of those who choose Medicare. This cap will end Medicare&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;all-you-can-treat&amp;rdquo; program that is bankrupting our country.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; This compromise gives Republicans several wins. First, Republicans reduce the size of government and restraining the growth of government spending. Second, Republicans advance their free market ideals by forcing government to compete with private business. Third, Republicans receive political inoculation from the Democrat&amp;rsquo;s Medi-&amp;ldquo;scare&amp;rdquo; tactics by supporting bipartisan health care reform endorsed by a liberal Democrat who was formerly a lobbyist for a senior citizen advocacy group and based on a proposal from the Bipartisan Policy Center.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The plan also gives Democrats several wins. First, Democrats get Republicans to accept a &amp;ldquo;public option&amp;rdquo; by having Medicare compete against private insurance which sets a precedent for future health care reform. Second, Democrats get Republicans to accept many key components of the Affordable Care Act as both plans promote insurance exchanges and subsidies to buy health insurance. This compromise complicates Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Third, Ryan&amp;rsquo;s acceptance of this plan creates huge holes in his Roadmap to Prosperity that showed how the GOP could balance the budget without raising taxes. The more generous benefits of this plan make it nearly impossible for Republicans to argue we can balance the budget without raising taxes.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Most importantly, the plan guarantees health care for seniors while placing the United States on a more sound financial footing. If not reformed, Medicare will almost double by 2050 crowding out all other government spending. In essence, reform saves Medicare while no reform means the end of Medicare.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; There are still details to be worked out, but in this Christmas season, maybe even politicians are finally giving us a reason to be hopeful.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;
This column originally appeared in the Dec. 23 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=137</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=137</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:06:24 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>The Duty of the American Voter</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; It has been a bad week in American politics.&amp;nbsp;The Congressional supercommittee has failed to find the combination of spending cuts and revenue increases needed to hit the targets agreed to last summer in exchange for relaxing the debt limit.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; There are some fundamental tasks governments must accomplish. One of those is that they must fund their activities.&amp;nbsp;In very recent memory we have gone from being a nation routinely running deficits in the low hundreds of billions to one racking up nearly $2 trillion worth of debt annually.&amp;nbsp;The perennial, low grade, nagging fiscal fever has spiked to 104 and shows no sign of breaking.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Americans have the common sense necessary to perceive the threat of excessive red ink.&amp;nbsp;The problem is that Congress lacks the consensus to fix the problem.&amp;nbsp;The reason is the unique nature of American politics.&amp;nbsp;We have a government purposefully designed not to run smoothly.&amp;nbsp;That is a very good thing which has probably saved us from a great many mistakes.&amp;nbsp;But it falls short when it comes to finding solutions quickly.&amp;nbsp;When the English elect a government, it typically has up to six years to implement its vision largely unimpeded and then takes responsibility for the results.&amp;nbsp;In America, our divided government faces a steep challenge when fundamental differences exist.&amp;nbsp;And lines of accountability are less clear.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; We are in that muddled situation now.&amp;nbsp;Republicans (in control of the lower house) want to reduce spending and limit government ambition in order to tame the deficit.&amp;nbsp;Democrats (with the presidency and the senate) want to raise taxes on the upper income brackets.&amp;nbsp;Neither side is willing to budge.&amp;nbsp;We have reached the point where differences are fundamental.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The good news is that our frequent elections provide the opportunity to remedy the difficulty.&amp;nbsp;Americans acted in 2006 and 2008 to reverse course on the Bush administration and the Congress which supported it.&amp;nbsp;In 2010, they again applied the brakes, but left the government with no operating consensus.&amp;nbsp;Come 2012, we are going to need a government with a plan it can enact.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;The competing philosophies are clear and are represented symbolically by the Occupy and Tea Party movements.&amp;nbsp;More government or less.&amp;nbsp;Redistribution versus a government which would prefer not to use taxation as the measure of equality.&amp;nbsp;A government which is the primary driver of the nation&amp;rsquo;s activities versus one that simply exists to do a few basic things so the private sector can thrive.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Our next election will require an attentive and purposeful electorate.&amp;nbsp;We will all need to make sure that we do not base our choices of president, senators, and representatives on the basis of marketing, image, tone, or any other superfluous category.&amp;nbsp;Instead, each of us needs to determine where we truly believe the good of the country lies and to vote accordingly.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Our trust in the political class has been damaged.&amp;nbsp;They promised and did not deliver.&amp;nbsp;But the failure only reinforces our responsibility as citizens.&amp;nbsp;We dare not shirk our duty even though we may feel our politicians have forgotten theirs.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;nbsp;This column originally appeared in the Nov. 25th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=136</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=136</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:24:36 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Admitting the Problem is the First Step Toward Solving It</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[In his 1948 presidential campaign, Harry &amp;quot;Give &apos;em Hell&amp;quot; Truman attacked Republican policies saying, &amp;quot;I never give anybody hell. I just tell the truth and they think it&apos;s hell.&amp;quot;
Today, we have the exact opposite. Our politicians do not tell us the truth because the budgetary truth is too hellacious. Instead, we see politicians make demagogic and dishonest statements that contribute to our budgetary paralysis.
Democrats contribute to the charade by claiming that we can solve our budgetary problems by taxing the rich. Looking at President Obama&apos;s proposal to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years, half comes from ending tax deductions and the Bush tax cuts for the rich while a third of his &amp;quot;savings&amp;quot; comes from spending what wasn&apos;t going to occur in the first place. Even if we take the extra $150 billion in annual tax revenue, it is a drop in the bucket in our current $1.4 trillion deficit, less than a quarter of our projected deficits in 2020, and does nothing to pay down our debt.
Meanwhile Democrats continue the fairytale that we don&apos;t have to restructure entitlements. Yet, Social Security has a $9.1 trillion unfunded liability and we will have to start repaying IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund in 2023.
But the big problem is health care, because health care costs are growing faster than inflation, and people are living longer. The Affordable Care Act exacerbates the budget situation because it increases Medicare spending, expands Medicaid and provides subsidies to the uninsured while providing no cost control. Thus, government health care spending will increase from 11 percent to 20 percent of GDP by 2050.
Yet, Republicans are just as guilty as they perpetuate the myth that we can easily reduce government spending to eliminate the deficit. For example, Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposes eliminating the departments of Commerce, Education and Energy but his actual proposal doesn&apos;t really save much money. Instead, his proposal eliminates cabinet secretaries but keeps the programs. For example, Perry &amp;quot;eliminates&amp;quot; the Commerce Department but moves departmental agencies, like the National Weather Service, to other departments, or makes others, like the Census Bureau, a stand-alone agency.
Second, Perry returns power to the states by replacing the Education Department with block grants. The states may get less federal money in exchange for flexibility in how they use education funds, but substantial federal education spending continues.
Third, Perry eliminates subsidies and research grants for energy research. However, he replaces this spending with tax incentives for private research. So savings from spending money is canceled out by new tax breaks. Overall, &amp;quot;eliminating&amp;quot; departments saves less than imagined.
With both parties perpetuating budgetary myths, the public assumes there are easy solutions and naturally oppose painful ones.
This dilemma brings us to the Super Committee. Members of both parties have proposed violating their party&apos;s sacred cows regarding taxes and entitlement reform, but the previously mentioned misleading claims lead affected interests and ideologues to oppose even minor tinkering.
Governing is about making choices, but our politicians refuse to make choices. And until politicians are honest with the public, we, as a nation, will be unable to make the difficult, but necessary, budgetary choices to put ourselves on a firmer financial footing.
This column originally appeared in the November 17 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=135</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=135</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:30:49 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>The Significance of Herman Cain</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[The Republican presidential field has been deeply unsettled as one candidate after the other moves forward to challenge Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Michelle Bachmann charged forward only to fall back in the pro-Perry wave. Perry stumbled badly in his first debates and lost points in the polls. As of this writing, the African-American business executive and media personality Herman Cain has surged into contention.
Cain&apos;s jump into the front rank of contenders is surprising. He has not held a political office, and he lost his contest for the Republican senatorial nomination in Georgia in 2004. The man who was something of a novelty candidate with an interesting tax plan has suddenly become the conservative favorite of the moment.
The first thing that must be said of Cain&apos;s rise is that it is another counterfactual to the meme spread by some on the left that the tea party is racist in its sympathies. Romney is supported by the old GOP establishment of the Bush family. Cain&apos;s campaign is powered by tea party support. If anything, his color improves his appeal to conservative voters tired of being slandered as retrograde racists. Racism can only fairly be charged against the tea party if being in favor of smaller government is tantamount to racism. It is not.
More important than his race are his personality and his tax plan. Cain is immensely likeable. His positive and humorous disposition serves him well in debates, in which some candidates come off as brittle and easily offended. This is a man who has done well, believes in the values that sustained him, and is eager to share his vision of success with the public. He comes across as confident, cheerful and non-threatening, very much like Ronald Reagan.
By now, virtually every political observer has heard Cain extol the virtues of his 9-9-9 tax plan with its components of taxation aimed at personal income, corporate profits and consumption. He is not the first candidate to get a lot of attention for an innovative approach to tax reform. Steve Forbes did it in 1996 with a flat tax. Mike Huckabee rode the consumption-based Fair Tax in 2008.
As Cain&apos;s standing has increased, so, too, has the scrutiny of his plan. While the details are vulnerable to criticism and will cost him support as they becomes well-known, he is differently situated than past tax reformers. The intractability of huge deficits and class-warfare clashes has frozen the debate over paying down the debt.
Most policy analysts, including the president&apos;s expert panel, realize that fundamental tax reform, rather than monkeying with the progressivity of rates, offers the best hope for breaking the logjam. That means broadening the tax base, eliminating deductions and loopholes and reducing the complexity of the system. Cain is the candidate who has most doggedly stuck to that theme.
The question for Cain is whether he will be able to transition from discussing the specifics of his plan to a broader discussion of fundamental tax reform. If he is able to do that, he will be able to remain in the front ranking. And whether he wins or not, he will have done our republic a favor by drawing attention to a real priority rather than a flashy debating point.
This column originally appeared in the October 21st edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=134</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=134</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:35:28 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Perry's Race to Win</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&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;To paraphrase Yogi Berra, &amp;ldquo;the GOP nomination ain&amp;rsquo;t over &amp;lsquo;til it&amp;rsquo;s over.&amp;rdquo; Even after several poor debate performances, controversy over his hunting camp, and falling poll numbers, Texas Governor Rick Perry is the favorite for the nomination.
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; First, the race is likely to come down between a conservative and Mitt Romney, and Perry is the only credible, conservative nominee who can put together a run at the nomination. Herman Cain&amp;rsquo;s inexperience will make it hard to withstand media scrutiny and to take advantage of his recent successes to build an organization and raise money. With no money, no experienced staff, and no organization, Cain has no chance. Michelle Bachman is a rabble rouser with no accomplishments. Newt Gingrich is undisciplined and character-challenged. Ron Paul has a narrow, intense group of supporters with no potential for growth. Rick Santorum has experience and is substantive but has limited appeal. By default, Perry is the conservative alternative to Romney.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Being the &amp;ldquo;credible conservative&amp;rdquo; is important because in every election parties must choose between their head and their heart. The head says choose the most conservative nominee who can win (Romney) while the heart says choose the one who most closely reflects your beliefs (Perry et al). With a flailing economy and unpopular president, Republicans think the election is theirs to win which reduces the danger from following their heart.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Moreover, Rick Perry has a politician&amp;rsquo;s best friend &amp;ndash; campaign money. Perry has a strong track record of raising money as demonstrated by his raising $17 million in six weeks. Moreover, his $15 million cash on hand should be equal to that of all his conservative rivals combined. That money means that he can communicate his message and build an organization to get his vote out in the early states, unlike his conservative opponents.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Just as important, the calendar favors the conservative. Iowa and Nevada are caucus states which brings out the most committed activists (i.e., the conservatives) while South Carolina is a very conservative state. If Perry wins those three while Romney wins New Hampshire, Perry has the momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday. If Perry wins Florida and Super Tuesday, the race is, for all intents and purposes, over.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Moving forward, Perry should be able to change his media narrative. In the debates, Perry&amp;rsquo;s uneven performances means people expect him to do poorly. If Perry exceeds his low expectations in the coming debates, the media storyline will change to one of a &amp;ldquo;new, more confident&amp;rdquo; Perry which will help him raise money and gain support.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;The outcome is not ordained though. The other conservatives may go for the knockout blow against Perry to dry up his fundraising and harden his negative media image in the hope of becoming the alternative to Romney. Perry may not improve quickly enough to erase doubts among donors and voters that he can be president. A weakened Perry may lead to a split in the conservative vote allowing Romney to win the nomination. &amp;nbsp;Or the establishment may rally to Romney and fund his campaign so he can obliterate his opposition.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;But overall, who would you rather be? The well-known, substantive, polished candidate who can&amp;rsquo;t increase his poll numbers above 25% no matter what (Romney) or someone who can appeal to the other 75% of Republican voters? Advantage Perry.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
This column originally appeared in the October 14th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=133</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=133</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:17:59 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Reviewing the Bidding on the GOP </title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Rick Perry, governor of Texas, has now participated in two debates with his fellow nomination seekers after announcing his campaign and instantly zooming to the top of the polls.&amp;nbsp;Was he THAT famous before making his announcement?&amp;nbsp;Had his book Fed Up! been a monster best-seller?&amp;nbsp;The answer to both questions is no, so why did he rise?&amp;nbsp;More important, how is he handling his front-runner status?
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; It seemed that Mitt Romney would cruise to the nomination.&amp;nbsp;Mitch Daniels was out.&amp;nbsp;Tim Pawlenty failed to catch fire and quit the race.&amp;nbsp;Romney had the advantage of having run semi-continuously for president for about four years.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;nbsp;The problem for Romney as a Republican primary contender has always centered on two main facts.&amp;nbsp;First, he is the one-term governor of Massachusetts, which is a state that normally produces governors at odds with the national party because of the compromises they have to make with their electorate.&amp;nbsp;Indeed, Romney has started insisting that Perry benefits from a state with oil and a conservative political climate.&amp;nbsp;Second, he pushed for a government health care program, which he must now defend and simultaneously insist is not right for the country as a whole.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Romney&amp;rsquo;s vulnerability created an opening for Michelle Bachmann, who sprinted through it for a win in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.&amp;nbsp;Bachmann&amp;rsquo;s win signaled to Perry that it was time to enter the race.&amp;nbsp;He did so to instant acclaim and sent Bachmann back to the second tier.&amp;nbsp;She knows he is the source of her rapid descent and pursues him vigorously in the debates, looking to exploit his weaknesses.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; In contrast to Romney, Perry is the governor of Texas.&amp;nbsp;Republican governors of Texas have become what governors of California once were, which is nearly automatic candidates for president.&amp;nbsp;His position has put him in the lead.&amp;nbsp;The question is whether he can stay there.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The Texan&amp;rsquo;s performance in the first debate was poor.&amp;nbsp;He appeared surprised by attacks launched by moderators and other candidates upon his record.&amp;nbsp;A question about climate change caught him so flat-footed he struggled to get through his answer.&amp;nbsp;But the scouting report on Perry is that he learns rapidly.&amp;nbsp;He showed that with a much more confident showing earlier this week in his second attempt.&amp;nbsp;But the trouble this time was that he said a few things about his policies that may reduce his appeal with the GOP base.&amp;nbsp;For example, he defended a program in Texas, which gives in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.&amp;nbsp;In his view, the program makes children of illegals productive whereas denying those benefits might lead to a young person going on welfare.&amp;nbsp;His rationale wasn&amp;rsquo;t bad, but there is toxicity in the border issue.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The biggest question about Perry for GOP voters is whether he is their best chance to sweep to victory in 2012.&amp;nbsp;Right now, they think he is.&amp;nbsp;Romney stands next to him a little impatiently, perhaps knowing that his measured, technocratic approach could give him a better chance against President Obama.&amp;nbsp;Rick Perry has the best chance of whipping up enthusiasm from the base, but he is also the most vulnerable to being demonized by the opposing party.&amp;nbsp;In an election where the president faces an uphill battle due to the economy, less exciting might be a formula for victory.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;nbsp;
This article originally appeared in the Sept. 16 edition of The Jackson Sun ]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=132</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=132</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:44:32 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Our Memorial to 9/11</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Two days from now, America remembers the tragedy that is 9/11. The next few days, we will remember the dead, praise the heroes that rushed into those two towers and tried to retake Flight #93, thank the police, military, and assorted security services that have prevented another attack on our homeland, acknowledge the justice that Osama received, and remember the price for the freedom that we, so often, take for granted.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Yet as I remember the decade since 9/11, I think the tragedy is not just that horrible day but how we have reacted since.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Most disappointingly, 9/11 and its aftermath contributed to a coarsening of our already poisoned political culture. For the past thirty years, our politics have become more uncivil. But the stakes involved with 9-11, especially those dealing with life, death, and personal rights, led many to decide that people were not just wrong on the issues but morally flawed. This belief led to an increasing number of character attacks as people challenged their opponents&amp;rsquo; motives, values, and integrity.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Instead of seeing basically good people doing their best under difficult circumstances and disagreeing over policies and priorities leaders pursued, people developed conspiracy theories that the Bush Administration was secretly behind or supported the 9/11 attacks so we could grab Middle East oil and create a police state to advance a theocratic agenda. Or today, some see Obama as the ultimate sleeper agent planted by radical Muslims who have orchestrated his rise to undermine America.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Far too many people live in a virtual cocoon surrounded by like-minded individuals that reinforce what they already believe and do not challenge their basic assumptions. These cocoons are reinforced by ideologically driven talk shows and political commentators on cable news channels while ideologically driven political groups and bloggers enforce a narrow political orthodoxy within a party. Moreover, these cocoons make it easier to demonize those different than us.&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;It was inevitable that the tremendous sense of unity that occurred after 9/11 would dissipate over time. But we could hope that an event that brought people of different backgrounds together would spill over positively into improving our political culture. Yet, our political debate is worse than ever.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Second, we missed a great opportunity to improve our nation. After major events in the past like Pearl Harbor and Sputnik, the United States developed a national purpose to defeat fascism and put a person on the moon. After 9/11, President Bush committed the military and the government to protecting the homeland and promoting democracy in the Middle East &amp;ndash; both worthy tasks. &amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;However, President Bush did not create a national purpose for us as citizens. This would have been a great opportunity to move toward energy independence, get our financial house in order, help restructure our economy for the information age, commit ourselves to restoring the family, or many other things. Instead, we went about our everyday life like nothing happened.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Over 200 years ago, James Madison wrote in Federalist #51 that politics is the &amp;ldquo;greatest of all reflections on human nature.&amp;rdquo; And 9/11 showed both the evil and the amazing goodness of humanity. This weekend and the days that follow, let us call on our better angels.&amp;nbsp;Let&amp;rsquo;s remember the heroic sacrifice of so many on that day and the ones that followed. But let&amp;rsquo;s also break free from our cocoons and talk with people different from us, turn off those who spew hate, and treat our political opponents with respect and dignity. And let&amp;rsquo;s restore to our politics a new sense of high purpose. That would be one of the most fitting memorials to that day.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
This article originally appeared in the September 9th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=131</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=131</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:14:31 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>The Silver Lining in the Debt Deal</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;nbsp;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&quot;&amp;rt;Most people watched the debt limit debate with disgust and deservedly so. But instead of reinforcing your well-honed cynicism, let&amp;rsquo;s note some of the more positive aspects of the fight.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; First, the fight was over principle. Democrats believe that government is the only institution that can promote justice for all, whether by regulating greedy corporations and individuals or taking care of the disadvantaged. Republicans believe the market and individuals will make better decisions than government and the foundation of the republic is free, independent citizens.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Yes, the fight was over budget numbers, taxes, and political advantage, but behind that are values that both sides hold dearly. Both sides want to promote the common good but they have vastly different conceptions of the common good and this makes compromise difficult. This fight should reassure those who think that are leaders are politically and morally bankrupt.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Second, leadership was rewarded. Congressional Republicans opened themselves to political attack by presenting a plan &amp;ndash; the Ryan plan &amp;ndash; to reduce the budget deficit. The Democrats presented no plan. Thus when the discussions turned to what should be done, both sides basically worked from the Republican plan. The simple fact is that if two people are building a house and one brings a blue print and other does not, the two people will work from the blue print no matter how flawed.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Moreover while &amp;ldquo;balance&amp;rdquo; is necessary, the president&amp;rsquo;s failure to develop and publicly defend a plan communicated a lack of resolve. This weakness reduced the bargaining advantage of the Democrats and resulted in a deal that tilted strongly toward Republicans. Hopefully, the president will learn and develop a specific plan to sell to the joint committee and the public.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Third, the &amp;ldquo;adults&amp;rdquo; prevailed. The failure to make a deal would destroy confidence in the U.S. economy and harm the economy even more. Knowing this, the adults, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), eschewed the extreme on both sides arguing against any compromise to develop a plan and then worked with the president and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to deliver large bipartisan majorities for the deal.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; The task of the specially created joint committee to find further reforms in entitlement programs and the tax code is difficult. However, the adult behavior of the congressional leaders provides some hope an agreement can be reached.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Fourth, the system worked. Many have described the government as &amp;ldquo;dysfunctional&amp;rdquo; because of the fight, but they seem to forget that the Founders created a system designed to prevent laws from passing. The creation of separate institutions with separate ambitions due to their terms of office, differing constituencies, and different sizes ensures that gridlock occurs. Moreover, the system ensures that major policy is largely bipartisan because of the need to create coalitions among districts, states, and the nation.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; And while the creation of the joint committee is an acknowledgement that major reform will face difficulties through the regular process. The requirement that party leaders appoint the members and that both chambers take an up-or-down vote is a recognition that the parties will make the decision together and that the times require special procedures.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;div style=&quot;margin: 0in 0in 0pt&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; Finally, the politicians kept their promises. Two years ago, Democrats enacted health care reform because they promised to. This year Republicans have cut the budget because they promised to. That is the behavior of principled politicians responding to a national need and not politicians captivated by special interests. Moreover, the politicians&amp;rsquo; behavior makes it easier for voters to make decisions because the politicians are basically doing what they say they will.&amp;lt;/div&amp;rt;
&amp;nbsp;
This article originally appeared in the August 5th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=128</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=128</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:59:43 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Will the 21st Century be the Chinese Century?</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[After recently spending two weeks in China, I believe predictions of a coming Chinese century are exaggerated. China will be a world power but not a superpower.
China has tremendous potential. First, there is a unified national sense of purpose about making China a great nation. Second, China&apos;s authoritarian government can make strategic decisions and implement them easily. Third, many Chinese have an entrepreneurial spirit. Finally and most important, the Chinese have an amazing sense of duty that focuses their attention and leads them to work hard.
In spite of these advantages, several obstacles lie in China&apos;s path to superpower status. First, the Chinese culture does not reward taking the initiative. While the Chinese are extremely hard working, the culture dictates performing only one&apos;s role. If your role does not require something, it is up to someone else to do it. This culture prevents many Chinese from developing latent skills.
Second, the Chinese rarely admit mistakes because it causes them to &amp;quot;lose face&amp;quot; in their culture. The inability to admit mistakes or weakness prevents them from learning and improving.
Third, the Confucian culture is too rigid and hierarchical. For example, the scores on the national college entrance exams pre-determine the university one enters and the degree one pursues. This system leads to students receiving degrees in subjects for which they are not well suited, which will affect China&apos;s future economic productivity. Moreover, the top-down decision making requires that the government plan correctly.
This unemployment problem speaks to the fourth obstacle, which is uneven economic growth. China&apos;s national economy has grown at rates of 10 percent per year over the past 30 years. However, the growth is focused in certain regions. The uneven growth leads to college graduates working in jobs that do not match their skills and many individuals working in make-shift jobs that could easily be eliminated.
Fifth, China emphasizes economic growth without the values that sustain it and ignores some basic humanitarian needs. For example, property rights are so suspect that basic maintenance does not occur, making recently built buildings look much older than they are. Moreover, the water sanitation system is so poor that everyone either boils water or buys bottled water when a simple solution is better water treatment plants.
Sixth, the tremendous growth over the past 30 years is changing individual expectations regarding jobs, personal freedom and success. As the Chinese continue to integrate with the world, they will observe life in other nations which will increase expectations further. If China is unable to meet its citizens&apos; expectations, challenges to the government&apos;s legitimacy may develop.
Finally, the global appeal of the Chinese model of strong economic growth but limited personal and political freedom may not appeal to the masses around the world. The Western model with its emphasis on human dignity, for all its faults, should appeal more to the growing middle classes in the developing world.
This article originally appeared in the July 1 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=127</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=127</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:55:33 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>Ayn Rand and Modern Politics</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Much note has been taken recently, especially on the Internet, of the late novelist Ayn Rand&apos;s influence on contemporary politicians and economists. Rand&apos;s most prominent novels are &amp;quot;Atlas Shrugged&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Fountainhead,&amp;quot; the latter of which was the basis of a 1947 movie starring Gary Cooper. According to Wikipedia, a 1991 survey for the Book-of-the-Month Club ranked &amp;quot;Atlas Shrugged&amp;quot; as the most influential book in the respondents&apos; lives second only to the Bible. Prominent among Rand&apos;s political admirers are Paul Ryan (author of the Republican 2012 budget proposal), Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a member of Rand&apos;s inner circle of friends.
Rand&apos;s novels were primarily vehicles for Objectivism, her own philosophy, which she described in terms of four basic assumptions. Together, the first two assumptions are that reality exists independent of our beliefs or emotions and that the only way to know reality is through reason. But Rand is hardly the first person ever to have made such assertions.
Rand&apos;s third assumption is that since each individual is &amp;quot;an end in himself ..., not a tool for the goals and purposes of others, ... the highest expression of morality is the pursuit of self-interest and our own happiness.&amp;quot; Here, I assume that by happiness she means well being. The fourth assumption is that the way to achieve the goal of the third assumption is &amp;quot;unfettered capitalism.&amp;quot;
Rand&apos;s work has been seen by her fans as a foreshadowing of the economic crisis of the last decade and by her critics as the cause of the crisis because of her emphasis on self-interest. According to some reports, by 2007 her books had sold 25 million copies and in 2008 alone, 800,000 were sold.
Born in Russia in 1905, Rand came to the U.S. in 1926. Although it always is risky to interpret a writer&apos;s work on the basis of his or her environment, it is plausible to view Rand&apos;s extremism, to some degree, as a reaction to the absolutism in Russia of the Czars and the Communists alike and to the socialistic elements of the New Deal in this country.
It also would be easy to attribute Rand&apos;s emphasis on self-interest to her atheism. But other atheists have had views radically different from hers on topics such as individualism and social responsibility, and one does not have to be an atheist to agree with her political and economic views. House Budget Chairman Ryan is a Roman Catholic. Actor Jim Carrey is said to read from &amp;quot;books by inspirational novelists like Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis.&amp;quot; One might easily appreciate elements of Rand and Lewis, therefore, but the combination will produce something quite different from either of them.
To say Ryan&apos;s economic reforms simply are legislative expressions of Rand&apos;s self-interest ethic also would be risky. But those reforms and Rand&apos;s philosophy seem to make the same basic error &amp;mdash; the assumption that in a fallen world socio-economic and political absolutes inevitably lead to ruin. But it should be no surprise that in a world in which the primary expression of fallen human nature is self-interest, novels that justify that condition with noble sounding words are best sellers.
This article originally appeared in the April 29th edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=125</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=125</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:27:38 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>The Health Care Choice</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Do you trust health care providers or yourself to reduce health care costs? This choice is the primary distinction between the dueling proposals of House Republicans and President Obama to reform Medicare.
House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) proposes Medicare reforms that emphasize individuals controlling costs through a market-driven system. Ryan would not touch Medicare for those 55 and older. But beginning in 2022, all seniors eligible for Medicare will receive a voucher, progressively price-based on health and income, to purchase health insurance. Individuals will then search for the health insurance policy that best fits their needs as insurance companies offer cost effective policies to respond to this demand, much like the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
The Ryan proposal is based on the assumption that individuals will be more cost conscious if they pay for medical coverage. Currently, individuals have no reason to be cost conscious because most employers pay for health insurance, and insurance companies &amp;mdash; not individuals &amp;mdash; pay the bills. Requiring individuals to make health decisions will encourage them to reduce their use of the health care system and thus reduce costs.
The primary objections are that seniors will pay more for their health care, the voucher may not keep up with health care inflation, and finances should not dictate whether seniors, who have a greater need for health care, receive care. In essence, the Republican plan requires seniors to self-ration their care, including end-of-life decisions.
Obama proposes that health care providers and experts control costs. First, Obama creates incentives for Accountable Care Organizations that would bring hospitals, primary care physicians and specialists together to better coordinate care. Rather than being paid per procedure, ACOs would be paid a set amount per diagnosis, providing them incentives to control costs.
One problem with this proposal is the focus on outcomes, which encourages ACOs to cherry pick healthy patients. Cost containment, meanwhile, would only work if participation is mandatory &amp;mdash; which would make ACOs &amp;quot;new and improved&amp;quot; HMOs with the same old problems.
Moreover, the push toward the consolidation of health providers creates fewer, larger health care providers and reduces competition. This consolidation increases the ability of ACOs, as the dominant provider in an area, to set higher prices and thus lessens cost containment.
Second, Obama wants to strengthen an independent board&apos;s ability to reduce Medicare costs if targets are not met. The board would use cost effectiveness research to determine the best, most cost effective treatments and only cover certain drugs and procedures.
The primary problem is that to meet targets the board would have to make decisions denying treatments that would be politically unpopular. Moreover since Medicare costs are greatest at the end of life, the independent board&apos;s decisions would deny life-extending treatment to very ill patients. Finally, it would bureaucratize health care and reduce quality of care by replacing individualized care with standardized practices.
Overall, Obama hopes his Medicare reforms reduce costs by driving changes throughout the health care industry as insurance companies adopt Medicare&apos;s cost containment reforms.
Due to Baby Boomers retiring and longer life expectancies, both Democrats and Republicans admit that we must reform Medicare. Frankly, both plans are risky, and the eventual solution will probably include elements of both. But the basic question remains: Do you or your provider make your health care choices?
This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2010 edition of The Jackson Sun]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=124</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=124</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:13:40 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>GOP's 2012 Dilemma</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[Do Republicans want to nominate a populist who embodies their values or a manager who solves our problems? According to the National Journal&apos;s Ron Brownstein, the Republican presidential field is divided by this distinction. The eventual nominee must bridge these two camps to have a chance of winning in 2012.
When comparing the two groups, there is little difference on policy. Both are conservative. The major difference is style and who they represent.
Brownstein argues that Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee represent the populists. Their appeal is less their agenda and more their identity. Both Palin and Huckabee rail against the establishment and stress their values and identity with the common person. Not surprisingly, their support largely comes from working class whites who oppose the financial excesses of Wall Street and government, are very patriotic and are the foot soldiers of the culture wars. These are the Reagan Democrats who have been moving away from Democrats since the 1960s.
According to Brownstein, Mitt Romney and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel represent the managers. The managers&apos; appeal is their resume and agenda rather than their identity. The managers work within the establishment to solve problems, reassure independents with their competence and calm demeanors and focus more on bread-and-butter issues than cultural issues. In short, they reflect college-educated Republicans who are more socially moderate, skeptical but not hostile toward government and focused on solving problems.
Looking toward 2012, the populists have the energy but no candidate. Palin is too unpopular to win. Huckabee shows no desire to run. Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman has limited appeal, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum cannot raise the money to be competitive. Moreover, a populist nominee would have difficulties raising money and appealing to independents, almost guaranteeing Obama&apos;s reelection.
The manager standard bearer is Romney, but the populists distrust him because he has flip-flopped on social issues and his Massachusetts health care plan resembles Obama&apos;s. Daniels is leery of running and his call for a &amp;quot;truce&amp;quot; on social issues is fiercely opposed by populists. The manager will have the money and establishment support and will appeal to independents but may leave the populists skeptical.
That leaves those straddling the divide. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is too undisciplined and has too much personal baggage to win. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour&apos;s recent comments glossing over the plight of blacks in Mississippi in the 1960s are damaging and evoke unpleasant stereotypes.
That leaves former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty has a working class background, is evangelical and managed Minnesota well during his two terms. Pawlenty&apos;s strategy is to be everyone&apos;s second choice, and he hopes that when the bigger names falter, the party can rally around him. The question is whether he can last long enough to be the default choice.
Regardless, the divide is real and explains the lack of excitement about the current candidates. Any future Republican president will have to manage the divide without splitting the party and alienating middle America. As George W. Bush showed, that is no easy task.
This article originally appeared in the March 18 edition of The Jackson Sun ]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=123</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=123</guid>
        <author>sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:49:40 CST</pubDate>
    </item><item>
	<title>President Obama's Moment</title>        
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;Barack Obama has not been elected to the presidency he wanted. The president rose to prominence in an America that was embroiled in controversial wars, but was otherwise growing and prosperous. Dark clouds loomed, but we&apos;d been hearing words like &amp;quot;subprime lending crisis&amp;quot; for some time, and the bomb never seemed to go off.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;Shortly before the president&apos;s election, the subprime bomb detonated and the American economy teetered on the edge of real disaster. Men on Wall Street, who have lived lives where nothing could touch them, came to understand existential fear during those hard days. While quickly considered legislation and Federal Reserve action managed to stabilize the system, significant damage had been done to the economy and to confidence developed in financial institutions over many decades.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;As a result, the America President Obama inherited was not the one he planned to run. He aspired to take over a country where things were going smoothly on the domestic front. His goals were relatively simple. He intended to reduce our military commitment to the war on terror and to develop more multi-lateral relations with other powers. That part gave him immediate appeal.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;At the same time, he would increase taxes in the higher brackets and achieve a further redistribution of wealth through expansion of the social welfare state. Unhappily, he finds himself in an America suddenly rolling out trillion dollar deficits annually, reeling from high unemployment and uncertain of the effects of a mega-historic, mega-dollar stimulus.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;So, today, Obama has to make a decision. He can bask in the controversial glory of his legislative effort to transform the social welfare state into a still more generous entity and simply finish his presidency impressing coastal elites by not being George Bush, or he can meet the unexpected challenges of the day and use his position to lead the charge toward achieving financial stability.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;His first steps post-midterm elections have not been promising. His new budget is nonchalant about the pressing fiscal crisis facing the United States. The lackluster budget proposal follows his failure to jump in and support his own deficit reduction panel of credentialed experts who recommended &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;entitlement reform and a number of other significant cuts (as well as some tax increases).&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;Some have suggested that the president is being cagey. He doesn&apos;t want to take the first step in hard leadership and thus open himself up to criticisms from the Republicans. Perhaps this is so, and he is simply waiting for the moment &amp;quot;when everyone gets into the boat at the same time so that it doesn&apos;t tip over,&amp;quot; as he put it. If so, the political reality is understandable, but disappointing. If we are indeed &amp;quot;the ones we have been waiting for,&amp;quot; as his campaign proclaimed, then it is time for him to lead us. The fiscal challenge is not the one he wanted, but it is the one he has to face. Presidents, especially aspiring transformative ones, don&apos;t always get to choose their battles.&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: -1px&quot;&amp;rt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;rt;
&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;This article originally appeared in the Feb. 18th edition of &amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;span style=&quot;position: relative; line-height: 1.17; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; left: 0px&quot;&amp;rt;The Jackson Sun&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;rt;]]></description>
        <link>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=121</link>
		<guid>http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=121</guid>
        <author>hbaker@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:32:39 CST</pubDate>
    </item></channel>
</rss>


