http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm reflections from the faculty of the political science department at Union Univeristy Copyright 2010 Union University Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:25:33 CST http://www.uu.edu/images/Crest_Horizontal-300.jpg http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm   <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli’s tirade against the stimulus and bailouts of irresponsible individuals and corporations sparked the tea party movement. And like the original Boston Tea Party, its goal is to start a revolution. This time though, the focus is our own government.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                In the ensuing months, the tea party movement organized rallies across the country, scared congressmen into opposing health care, and became more popular than the two major parties. Yet like many social movements, it has lost momentum with a controversial national convention, losses in Republican primaries, and a decline in popularity.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The tea party movement is now at a crossroad and must decide its future direction. Will it fade away, start a third party, remain an independent movement, work within the Republican Party, or be co-opted by the Republican Party?</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                First, are the tea parties a mood or a movement? A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that 18% of the public supports the tea party movement and much of this support stems from anger at President Obama, Congressional Democrats, trillion dollar deficits, bailouts, health care reform, and a sour economy. Will this support remain when the economy improves and/or Republicans gain power or will public support fade away like the Perot movement in the 1990s?</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                If they remain a political force, the third party idea is probably doomed. Successful third parties must be ideologically distinct from the two major parties. Yet polls show that over 60% of tea partiers are Republican and the anti-government motivation of tea partiers fits nicely with the Republican mantra of small government. Thus, smart tea partiers will run as Republicans with their established voting base, fundraising abilities, and organizations that excel at voter mobilization.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Consequently, it may make sense for tea partiers to join local Republican parties and use the party to further their agenda and force candidates further to the right. However, political participation teaches cooperation and compromise and thus moderation while ideological extremists rarely win elections.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The Tea Party’s extremism and active political involvement means that many establishment candidates will probably co-opt tea partiers to win primaries and then pursue more moderate policies to stay in office if elected. Already, tea partiers are upset with Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) for supporting the Democratic jobs bill and they will probably be upset at their current favorite candidate, Marco Rubio of Florida, who is using Governor Charlie Crist “embrace” of Obama’s stimulus to lead polls in the Republican Senate primary. Rubio is not a tea partier but a member of the establishment as a protégé of Jeb Bush and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                This leaves an independent movement as their best option which, coincidentally, fits their personality the best. Tea partiers are distrustful of authority fearing that it will corrupt the movement. They prefer a more fluid, leaderless movement where the masses remain in control. This can help tea parties influence the Republican Party’s agenda and provide the volunteers and money to move Republicans to the right or tea partiers can pick and choose issues and candidates depending on the movement’s desires.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                However, this distrust of authority leads to two problems. First, they are prone to the Judean People’s Front syndrome. In Monty Python’s Life of Brian, the Judean People’s Front fought with the People’s Front of Judea, the Popular Front of Judea, etc. over small things losing sight of the big picture. Today, we see the tea partiers fighting each other as members of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) sue each other while TPP distrusts the Tea Party Express’s Washington connections and the Tea Party Nation’s Republican tendencies.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Second, the distrust of authority sometimes manifests itself in conspiracy theories about black helicopters, the Federal Reserve, the origins of 9/11, and Obama’s citizenship. These conspiracy theories threaten the movement’s future as opponents will marginalize the movement as a “bunch of crazies.”</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The organizers of the Boston Tea Party never knew that event would spark a revolution. The current tea partiers hope to lead a revolution but time and their own efforts will determine if their revolution ends with a bang or goes out with a wimper.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt; </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;Article originally appeared in the March 16 edition of the Jackson Sun </div&rt; <div&rt; </div&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=102 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=102 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:25:32 CST <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt"&rt;If you want to lose weight, there is a program for you. You can exercise, follow the Atkins, Zone, or South Beach diet, take appetite suppressant drugs, have your stomach stapled, join a weight loss program like Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig. Or you can be like the contestants on The Biggest Loser and hire a personal trainer to help lose the weight. Yet with all of these options, people still have trouble losing weight and keeping it off. A primary reason these programs fail is that people lack or cannot maintain the commitment to change their lifestyle to lose weight. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                 The federal government is no different. Due to government's insatiable appetite to spend, we have a projected $1.56 trillion deficit for 2010, a $12.3 trillion debt, and projections to add $8.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade. And just like people, government has all sorts of options to reduce government deficits. We have tried impoundment, mandating deficit reductions, budget caps, pay-as-you-go laws, etc. Yet whatever we try, the results fail or work for only a short period of time. In fact, the balanced budgets of the 1990s were largely built on political gridlock and the tech bubble and when the tech bubble burst followed by 9-11, the economy went into a recession and deficits followed. Republican policies under Bush made the deficit worse. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Today, we have the most recent plan to control spending and reduce the deficit: a government debt commission. Two weeks ago, the Senate defeated the Conrad-Gregg Debt Commission proposal. This proposal, similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, would create a bipartisan panel to decide how to reduce the deficit and Congress would have to accept or reject the proposal on an up-or-down vote. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Yet, politics killed the proposal. Six Republican Senators who had sponsored the bill or similar bills voted against it while President Obama only supported the bill to gain the support of moderate Democrats to raise the debt ceiling. Now, President Obama is creating a commission by executive order to offer suggestions to cut the deficit. However, this plan is a political fig leaf because Obama has made no serious effort to balance the budget (his budget reduces the deficit to $706 billion by 2014 but sees it rise to over $1 trillion by 2020) and Congress can ignore the panel.</span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                However, the mere fact that Washington debates a debt commission proposal shows a failure of political leadership. In essence, Congress is saying that we have to abdicate our legislative responsibility to others because the problem is too difficult politically. Remember, the whole point of the commission is to provide political cover to Republicans who oppose raising taxes and Democrats who oppose reducing entitlements. So create a commission that makes you do both and claim that you had no choice but to take the good with the bad. Plus, a bipartisan vote removes it as a political issue in the general election. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                But political cover is not enough, we need political leadership. Debt commission supporters point to the success of the Greenspan Commission to save Social Security but Robert Ball, a former Social Security Administration Commissioner, and Alan Greenspan both claim that the commission only succeeded because President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-MA) were committed to it and twisted arms to salvage a deal and pass the bill. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Today, the parties are more polarized than 25 years ago and few show the political courage to advocate financially responsible policies. Therefore, what makes Washington confident that Congress will show the political will and pass the commission proposals? So what Democrat will show political courage and say that Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt and propose reducing individual health care spending and Social Security benefits? What Republican will say that even if we eliminated all non-defense discretionary spending, we still have a large deficit so taxes will have to increase? </span&rt;</div&rt; <span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Unfortunately, the deficit and debt are real and not a TV show with a happy ending. And if we don’t seriously curb our spending ways, the “biggest loser” will be us and our children and grandchildren’s future.</span&rt; <span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Article originally appeared in the Feb. 5 edition of The Jackson Sun </span&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=101 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=101 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:03:38 CST This column appeared in the Jackson Sun on January 22nd, 2010. One of the small pleasures of following politics is that occasionally there are genuine surprises. To be sure, with a 24-hour news cycle, paid spinmeisters for both parties and an avalanche of newspaper and Internet punditry, the same political event can be hyped up, toned down, dismissed, buried, celebrated, twisted or ignored completely, depending on the source. And so it will be with the latest political bombshell that hit the nation Tuesday with Republican Scott Brown defeating Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts senatorial special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy. As the national media and political party operatives sort through the aftermath, here are some quick observations from one of your own West Tennessee political observers. First, it simply is an astonishing political development. That a fairly conservative Republican could run on: 1. opposition to Obama's health care plan; 2. national security, including using enhanced interrogation techniques (read: waterboarding); and 3. cutting taxes; and succeed the liberal icon Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts is nothing short of astounding. It is a political story that will reverberate for some time to come. Watch in the weeks to come for more Republicans to announce that they are running for office, and look for more Democrats to announce retirement. Spending time with the family may suddenly become a higher priority for many politicians in tenuous circumstances. That said, and second, there is a lot of time between now and the 2010 midterm elections, and an eternity of political time until the re-election campaign for 2012. Whether you are a gleeful Republican or a despondent Democrat, don't make the mistake of reading too much into this. The first president Bush enjoyed 90 percent approval ratings shortly after the Gulf War in the early 90s, and look how that turned out for him. The moral is that things can change a great deal between now and the next election. How much change depends on the answer to the third point. Will President Obama learn from his first year in office? Conservative columnist Jim Geraghty notes that previous presidents such as the Bushes, Clinton and Reagan all had significant political defeats that they learned from. After the Republicans won convincingly in 1994, Clinton famously declared that the era of big government was over. In other words, he adjusted his strategy to accord with political reality. Obama has not had a similar experience before becoming president, and he will be pressured by some elements of his base to push through with health care reform despite its decreasing popularity. This election, and the Republican victories for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, have shown that independents are leaving the Democrats in droves. If Obama can move to the middle without completely alienating his liberal base, he has a good chance at recapturing some of those independents. Finally, Republicans would do well not to take their recent good fortune as indicative of the electorate's carte blanche support for Republican policies. It seems clear that President Obama and congressional Democrats misread the 2008 elections as a mandate for their progressive vision for America. Besides the historic nature of electing our first African-American president, 2008 appears to have been much more about a rejection of Bush than an enthusiastic acceptance of Democratic policy preferences. Republicans, if they want to avoid the fate of their 1994 forebears and current Democrats, need to offer tangible, incremental solutions to practical problems while resisting the temptation to shoot for the moon. This does not mean they have to compromise their principles to appeal to independents. Rather, in an environment in which both parties are held in very low esteem, whichever party can establish a measure of competence and civility in the most pressing matters of jobs and security may earn the trust needed to present a more ideological agenda down the road. http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=100 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=100 mwatson@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:55:39 CST <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                My mom had a simple rule at the table: no dessert unless you ate your vegetables. So I would hold my nose, stuff them in my mouth, and chase the vegetables down with milk so I could get the good stuff – dessert. Mom knew that while I may not like them, vegetables helped me grow up healthy. And desserts, while tasty, were bad for me in large quantities. So she needed, and found, the right balance.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                But that balance is exactly what we are missing in our politics today. We all want to eat dessert but just keep the broccoli away. We want the good things that government can provide like health care, security, clean air, quality schools, and good roads but we don’t want to make the difficult decisions to fund and reform the services because it will hurt us. And so we pay the price of an unhealthy government and society.  </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                We want low taxes and plenty of services so we have large government deficits and a $12 trillion debt. Large deficits mean we need people to loan us money so we borrow and thus fund China’s rise as our leading competitor in the 21<sup&rt;st</sup&rt; Century.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Future generations face higher taxes or greater benefit cuts because we refuse to reform an untenable Social Security system. We want universal health care but not if it raises taxes or rations health care.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                We want cheap gas so we pursue policies that fund people who try to blow up our airplanes and kill our soldiers. We want to own the largest, most expensive home possible so banks loan more than people can afford resulting in the mortgage crisis.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                 We want quality schools but complain about linking funding to student performance. We want to break the cycle of poverty and culture of despair but we refuse to reach out because it is inconvenient or we expect someone else to do it.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                We want free love and end up with high teenage pregnancy rates, 1.2 million abortions a year, and a high STD rate. We want a decent society but we act in ways that undermine morality.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                And when things inevitably go wrong because we refuse to eat our vegetables, we act surprised and blame our political opponents, special interests, and/or the political elites. And they are to blame, especially the political elites. Our political leaders know better but refuse to admit the obvious or insist on the vegetables for electoral and/or ideological reasons and so perpetuate the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                But in the end, Pogo is right: “We have met the enemy and it is us.” Politicians can do this because we let them. They are responsive to us and will change if we insist they do.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Change requires citizens taking an active role and electing problem solvers willing to tell us what we do not want to hear. Things like we need to reduce the size of government and increase revenue so we can begin to run surpluses to reduce our debt and the first step toward this is reforming our entitlement programs, the largest part of the budget.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Energy independence, whether by drilling, increasing energy efficiency, and investing in alternative energy, will result in higher prices. Affordable universal health care requires greater personal ownership of one’s health, a more transparent, competitive health care system, higher personal costs, fewer procedures, tort reform, and lower payments to providers. Government can provide money to the poor but only individuals, community groups, and churches can provide hope and change lives to reduce teenage pregnancy, stabilize families, improve education outcomes, etc.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                This culture change should then result in greater corporate and union responsibility and accountability, a media focused on informing people rather than entertaining them, and a stronger civil society as we treat each other with respect.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                So as you celebrate New Years Day and eat your hog jowls and black eyed peas for luck, take an extra helping of peas. We need to eat our vegetables, figurative and literal, to ensure a healthy 2010 and beyond.</div&rt;   This article originally appeared in the January 1, 2010 edition of the Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=99 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=99 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:10:50 CST There has always been a darker side to Christmas. Simeon warned Mary that her son would cause the rise and fall of many in Israel, and that a sword would pierce her soul. Joseph and Mary's furtive escape to Egypt wasn't recreational in nature. Think for a moment about the carrying out of Herod's order to kill every male child under 2 years old in the vicinity of Bethlehem. It should be no less horrific merely because so many centuries have passed and the story is so familiar to us. The familiarity is a problem. It was not all angels singing to shepherds, guiding stars, wise men bearing gifts and a newborn cuddled safely with his mother and father. Those things are also part of the story, and rightly so. They are plot details that we can't do without, but they are also central in part because they are so safely told, and retold, in pageants and sermons and nativity scenes. We understandably shy away from remembering the darker parts of the story ourselves, let alone try and explain them to our children. Yet we miss the full import of the real Christmas narrative if we do not even occasionally dwell in the shadows of the original narrative. The gospel - literally, good news - only makes sense as good news if the audience for its proclamation is familiar with hardship, oppression and, at times, terror. Good news doesn't make sense unless there is also bad news. Much of the bad news would have been understood by the Jews of Jesus' time as political. Joseph and Mary were traveling despite her pregnancy in response to the census order of an occupying government. Herod's slaughter of the innocents stemmed from his own insecurity given a prophecy about a future king who might challenge his power. And Jesus' ministry made the political and religious powers increasingly uneasy. Of course the Christian message is that the bad news was not merely political. Deeper than any diseased politics that elicited hopes for a political savior is the fundamental disordering of the human condition itself. The good news of Jesus' birth was bad news for the powers that be, but nevertheless still good news for those who recognize they are sick and need more than earthly politics and earthly medicine. This is what is truly offensive about the Christmas message today. It is not necessarily that God became man, or the difficulty of believing in miracles, but that there is wrong in the world that needs to be set right, and fundamentally it is not the government or the economy. It is you. And me. Theologically this leads us back to the darker side of Christmas, for even the nativity scenes that decorate many of our homes point forward not to the celebration of the New Year, but another dark day with a hill and three crosses that also has become all too familiar. This message is all the more potent because there is still a darker side to Christmas. In some parts of the world parents still fear for the lives of their children as they venture out to worship in house churches. Closer to home, Christmas is a terribly difficult time for many. Perhaps it is the first Christmas without a loved one. Or past wounds resurface with familiar songs and memories. It can be an awfully trying season for some amidst the good and wonderful traditions enjoyed by others. Given this, it makes sense to tell the whole Christmas story and not just the "feel good" moments. Thus Christians would do well this season to rethink the setting of the original Christmas, and consider whether these less pleasant details render the story and teachings of their faith that much more remarkable. Moreover, non-Christians might even see some daylight between the Christo-American holiday focused on primarily on tinsel and credit cards and the genuinely Christian celebration of a light beginning to shine in what had been darkness. This article originally appeared in the Dec. 18 edition of the  Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=98 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=98 mwatson@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:59:17 CST Health care reform promises universal coverage, lower costs, and higer quality. The proposed U.S. House and Senate plans fulfill none of these promises. The House plan leaves 18 million uninsured and the Senate plan 23 million uninsured. The Medicare Expenditure Panel survey finds that the average cost of private sector health insurance in 2008 was $4,386 for singles and $12,298 for families. Even though the House and Senate plans require individuals to buy health insurance, the penalty for not doing so in the House bill (2.5 percent of income over $9,350) would be $1,066 for the median household, which made $52,029 in 2008. The Senate penalty would be $750 for a single and $2,250 for a family in 2016. For a single person or family desperate to meet bills, it is cheaper to pay the penalty than buy health insurance. The low penalties are especially problematic because they reduce the probability that the young buy insurance. We need young, healthy people who are less likely to use health care to enter the insurance pool so their premiums cover the higher costs of health care for the old. If they don't buy insurance, the limits on pricing premiums on age will increase premiums for everyone. The bills also result in higher deficits, don't bend the "cost curve" of health care spending and result in higher premiums. The bills are budget neutral in the first 10 years due to budget tricks. Taxes begin immediately but financial benefits don't begin until 2013, so we have 10 years of taxes paying for seven years of spending. But a program that spends 10 years of revenue in seven years is not actuarially sound. In addition, the bill is deficit neutral based on lower payments to providers. Yet, congresses of both parties have refused to lower reimbursements (the sustainable growth rate) to hospitals and providers. In fact, House Speaker Pelosi promises to fix the SGR for doctors in a separate bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimates to costs $210 billion over 10 years. And the bills include the CLASS Act, meant to provide long-term care insurance, which even Democratic senators call a ponzi scheme. Moreover, health care economists suggest several things to reduce health care spending: Replace paying doctors for number of procedures ordered with a system that rewards good outcomes and better manages costs; tax health insurance so individuals have economic incentives to restrain use; increase comparative cost effectiveness research; incentivize wellness. However, the House and Senate plans only provide for demonstration projects in how we pay for health care. The Senate plans takes a good step by taxing "Cadillac" insurance plans, but everyone knows union opposition will scuttle that proposal. And the recent opposition to health care experts proposing fewer mammograms shows that politics will intrude on "expert" decisions. Furthermore, insurance premiums will increase for families under the proposals. According to the CBO, individually purchased plans will cost $11,000 for families in 2016 under current law. With the proposed changes, CBO estimates that individually purchased plans will cost $14,100 for families in 2016. Though federal subsidies will cover the increases for most people, the new regulations actually increase insurance premiums. The bills also inadequately deal with quality of care. They inadequately promote wellness, which would reduce health care costs. They don't increase transparency of prices and performance to increase competition and higher quality service. They don't increase pay-for-performance programs. They don't adequately provide incentives for increasing the number of doctors and nurse practitioners to serve the increased demand. And fewer medical professionals combined with more patients will lead to less individualized and thus lower quality care. President Obama has said that we must have health care reform, and he is correct. He has also said that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These proposals aren't even good. It's time to hit the reset button and restructure the health care system to promote wellness, competition, transparency and quality care. When we lower costs, then we can more easily expand access. This article originally appeared in The Jackson Sun on November 27, 2009 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=95 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=95 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:16:53 CST   <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;            In Hans Christian Anderson’s fairy tale, an Emperor obsessed with clothes hires some swindlers to make him the most beautiful clothes in the world. In making the nonexistent clothes, the swindlers claim that the cloth is invisible to the unfit and stupid. Not wanting to be seen as such, the Emperor and his ministers pretend that the clothes are beautiful. Finally as the emperor parades in public in his new clothes, it takes a small boy in the crowd to state the obvious truth that “the Emperor has no clothes!” </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;            Similarly despite two Senate committee hearings on the propriety of czars and the protestations over former Green Energy Czar Van Jones and other czars, the simple fact is that the “Czars have no clothes” or, more appropriately, no power.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;            When we think czar, we think of the all powerful Russian rulers. And when we combine this conception of an autocratic ruler with the sheer number of czars in the Obama Administration (32), the government takeover of banks and the auto industry, and government dictating pay for executives, it is easy to understand how some fear the rise of socialism in America.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;            Yet, the fear of czars is misplaced. Most czars are simply presidential aides who coordinate the development and implementation of policy. They have official titles like director, special assistant, or special representative. The media calls them czars due to their broad portfolio and to signal the importance the Administration gives these issues. But czars have no staff, no budget authority, and no legal authority. Thus, they have no ability to command cabinet members or anyone else. Their power comes from their personal reputation, personal expertise, and ability to speak for the president. And few, outside of the foreign policy czars like Richard Holbrook (Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar) and George Mitchell (Middle East Czar), possess this.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;A good example of a czar is Nancy-Ann DeParle, the Health Czar. She, unlike any other czar, has a West Wing office and this proximity to Obama indicates her importance. Yet, her primary job is developing policy and lobbying congress. In this, she works closely with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and Budget Director Peter Orzag. All four persuade, cajole, and pressure but none command congress to produce a specific health care reform bill.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;And we need to remember that czars did not originate with Obama. FDR appointed czars to help manage the war effort and every president since has appointed at least one czar.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;In short, czars simply help the president do his job because he cannot do everything himself. They can only exercise real power if the Senate confirms them to hold a statutorily created position with express powers, like Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, or if they eventually move to the cabinet like Bush White House staffers Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, and Margaret Spellings.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;There are some real concerns though. First, Congress fears the White House is making policy rather than departments which limits their oversight ability. But the simple fact is that White Houses have centralized power since Richard Nixon. Presidents, concerned about reelection and their legacy, prefer to make major decisions rather than rely on departments that may have different political interests.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;Second, no clear lines of authority may produce chaotic decision making. We have seen strong National Security Advisors like Henry Kissinger under Nixon and Zbignew Brezinski under Jimmy Carter eclipse the State Department. Yet in the end, presidents are held responsible for the decisions they make and the people they appoint. Processes that work well redound to their benefit. Those that do not work well result in political scandals or failed policies.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;Third, empowering czars to make decisions leaves little role for cabinet members as policy makers. If cabinet members are left as middle managers, it may be more difficult to recruit qualified, prominent members for these positions who command the respect of the world, markets, and other political actors which is needed in a crisis.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;So while concerns over the expertise, statements, and policy views of czars are legitimate, we have little to fear from czars themselves. After all, the “Czar has no clothes.”  </div&rt;   Article orginally appeared in the October 23rd edition of the Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=94 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=94 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:55:31 CST Ezekiel Bulver, a 5-year old boy, sat at his breakfast table listening to his parents. His father, scribbling diagrams on a sheet of paper, was insisting to his mother that any two sides of a triangle will always be longer together than the third side by itself. <div class="articleflex-container"&rt;Mrs. Bulver's response struck young Ezekiel like a lightning bolt, "Oh, you say that because you are a man."</div&rt; Looking back on this event as an adult, Bulver described his great discovery: "At that moment there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." Ezekiel Bulver is, of course, fictional. He is a creation of C.S. Lewis of Narnia fame in a little-known essay entitled "Bulverism." But while Bulver the person is fictional, bulverism the phenomenon is all too real, and what Lewis warned against in 1941 has become so prevalent today that one need only observe everyday conversation for a moment to recognize it. "He's only in favor of the war because he's in ROTC." "She feels abortion is wrong only because she's Catholic." "They're religious because they need a crutch to get through life." "He is against gay marriage because he is homophobic." Thus any sort of proposition or argument is rendered superfluous. We can explain, or better yet, label, the psychology, and so we don't need to engage an idea. The last statement above is perhaps the premier example of contemporary bulverism. Rather than admit that reasonable people can differ about the morality of human sexuality and public recognition of various sexual relationships, some will employ the "homophobic" label for a broad swath of people from the truly homophobic (e.g., shock jock Michael Savage) to those who believe that though homosexual orientation is a sort of disorder and homosexual actions are morally wrong, gay men and women still are made in God's image and deserving of respect (e.g. Pope Benedict). Of course, how that dignity and respect translate into public policy with regard to marriage and the like is at the heart of the debate. But good-faith debate is hobbled from the beginning by the description of one entire side as suffering from a phobia. And to have a phobia is, by definition, to have an irrational fear. Another, less polite, word for irrational is "crazy." One doesn't debate crazy people. One ignores them, or discredits them, or has them medicated. Bulverism is an equal-opportunity phenomenon. The conversational examples listed above bulverize more conservative positions, but conservatives can be equally guilty in psychologizing and dismissing liberals. It is not the case that every complaint about George Bush was driven by wild hatred. Pacifists are not necessarily cowards. Criticizing the war does not mean one secretly wants the terrorists to win. Of course, it may very well be the case that some pacifists are cowards, and some who oppose gay marriage really do have an irrational fear and hatred of gays. Yet when we bulverize, we undercut the civil discourse necessary for the health of any democratic society. We treat those with whom we disagree as mere subjects of our amateur psychologizing rather than as persons with ideas in their own right. It may very well be that upon reflection, we will conclude their ideas are false, or misguided, but we will not know unless we give them a fair hearing, and in the process we'll likely learn more about our own positions. More important, we'll engage in the sort of argument that can produce light and not merely heat. Article originally published in the Oct. 9 edition of The Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=93 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=93 mwatson@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:38:19 CST Health care costs are out of control. Yet, we can reduce costs and improve health care if we take personal responsibility for our health and make the health insurance system more responsive. <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                First, high health care costs are our fault. The Health Project Consortium (HPC) "http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/5/321"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;reports</font&rt; that 70% of all health costs result from changeable personal behaviors like overeating, smoking, alcohol abuse, not wearing a seat belt, sexual promiscuity, a sedentary lifestyle, overexposure to the sun, etc. To rectify this, we need to incentivize healthy behavior through lower premiums and rewards for participation in wellness programs while punishing unhealthy behavior through higher insurance premiums and taxing unhealthy behaviors.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Second, health promotion programs make us more savvy patients.  These programs educate people to self-diagnose and treat minor illnesses, provide counseling that identifies personal health risks and means of managing them, provide phone nurses that answer medical questions without appointments, etc.  The HPC reports that these programs help people make better medical decisions and reduce use of the health care system.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Third, we can become more consumer savvy with greater transparency in prices and quality measures. Currently, the health insurance system "http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;disguises costs and discourages competition</font&rt; with differential and non-public pricing and regulations that make starting medical care facilities difficult. Furthermore, the CDC "http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/hai.html"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;estimates</font&rt; that hospitals account for 1.7 millions infections and 99,000 deaths each year while a RAND study "http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT306.pdf"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;shows</font&rt; that only 55% of patients receive the recommended, proven care for leading causes of death and disability. Give patients knowledge of prices and quality measures and they will find better, more affordable health care.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Moreover, more public information on quality measures would encourage medical professionals to more quickly adopt electronic record keeping and infection prevention systems which would improve health care. And comprehensive "http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;tort reform</font&rt; would reduce defensive medicine and eliminate nuisance suits arising from greater transparency.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;Yet, transparency will not work unless the health care system becomes more competitive. The AMA "http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;reports</font&rt; that 42 of 45 states, for which data is available, are highly concentrated using the Department of Justice’s index to measure market concentration. This means that one or two insurance companies dominate the state health care insurance field which allows them to charge higher premiums.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;However, competition can change that. A recent University of Pittsburgh "http://www.ins.state.pa.us/ins/lib/ins/highmark-ibc/0942.pdf"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;study</font&rt; shows that premiums are 12% lower in more competitive markets. This is why some support a public option. Yet the public option is "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803449.html"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;unlikely to reduce costs</font&rt; due to administrative costs relating to collecting premiums, marketing itself, maintaining a reserve fund, and managing care.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;Moreover, it would be more efficient to create a national insurance market and let companies compete against each other. Currently, business practices are regulated by states and the various regulations makes entry into the market cost prohibitive. A "http://www.examiner.com/x-21037-Illinois-Statehouse-Examiner~y2009m9d13-The-Difference-Between-President-Obama's-Health-Insurance-Exchange-And-A-Marketplace"&rt;national market with one set of regulations would increase the size of the insurance pool making claims payments more manageable, predictable, and stable, could increase competition among insurers, provide more insurance options, and potentially allow consumers to choose health insurance as easy as car insurance.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;Fourth, the system needs fundamental change that rewards quality medical care. Currently, insurance companies use fee-for-service plans that reimburse doctors, clinics, and hospitals for each visit, test, procedure, etc. This model creates financial incentives that reward quantity, not quality, care that does not result in better outcomes according to "http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/atlases/Spending_Brief_022709.pdf"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;Dartmouth College</font&rt;.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Therefore, some suggest "http://www.modernhealthcare.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20090406&Category=REG&ArtNo=904039970&SectionCat=&Template=printpicart"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;bundling</font&rt; fees (combined fee for all costs of a procedure) forcing hospitals and clinics to manage costs, creating a "http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2006/Nov/Developing-a-Center-for-Comparative-Effectiveness-Information.aspx"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;comparative effectiveness research center</font&rt; to improve decisions about the type, frequency, and volume of treatments, and using "http://www.premierinc.com/about/news/09-aug/hqid081709.jsp"&rt;<font color="#800080"&rt;pay-for-performance</font&rt; models that reward quality health care.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Yet these suggestions have drawbacks. Do we want more intrusive government mandating physical fitness? Will patients be better consumers with more information or face information overload? Will congress choose regulation over competition? Will a comparative research center implicitly set national standards for care leading to rationing or cookie-cutter medical care?</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Can we cust health care costs? yes we can -- if we take responsibility for our health and increase transparency and competition in the health care system.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt; </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;Article originally appeared in Sept. 18, 2009 edition of The Jackson Sun </div&rt;   http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=92 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=92 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:58:26 CST   <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Presidential approval has fallen to the "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html"&rt;low to mid 50s. "http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090729.pdf"&rt;49% of the public oppose the Democrat’s health care proposal. Constituents express anger at congressional town hall meetings on health care. Congress fails to meet Obama’s August deadline of passing health care. Many see these signs and conclude that health care reform is Obama’s political “Waterloo.” Yet, political fundamentals dictate that some version of health care reform will pass this year.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The trouble that Obama and the Democrats face is real – and predictable. New presidents always enjoy a honeymoon. However once they start making decisions, they begin to upset people and approval begins to fall. Obama’s approval is down but average for presidents at this point in their term.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Same with opposition to health care. Everyone favors health care reform until they find out how it affects them. As "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html"&rt;Scott Rasmussen points out, 68% of American voters like their own health insurance plan and 74% rate highly their quality of care. Yet, 50% believe congress’s plan will reduce the quality of care and 78% believe the plan will result in higher taxes. This results in an intense opposition as 41% strongly oppose the plan compared to 25% who strongly support it. This suggests that the anger expressed at town halls is real and not manufactured.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Plus, Congressional Democrats made some mistakes. They are moving too fast, trying to do too much, and forcing their members to take too many tough political votes. This leads Democrats to voice opposition to the bill which signals independents that the bill is too extreme which, in turn, lowers support for the bill. It also encourages a demoralized Republican opposition that they can regain power.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                However, political fundamentals favor passage of a bill. First, Rasmussen polls show that 63% of voters support providing health care to all Americans. Second, everyone admits that health care costs are out of control and need to be contained. Third, business, a traditional opponent of reform, favors reform because health care costs are making businesses uncompetitive. These factors are unlikely to change and will continue the demand for reform.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Most importantly, Democrats have large, coherent majorities in congress and a leadership committed to using them to alter the larger political environment. In terms of numbers, Congressional Republicans are largely irrelevant. Democrats have a 78 vote advantage in the House and 60 seats in the Senate enabling them to break Republican filibusters.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                And the Democratic Party of today is more ideologically coherent. There are really no moderates left in congress. A moderate Democrat or Republican is not a centrist. One is a moderate relative to the base of one’s party. Thus, a moderate Democrat is really a moderate liberal. That is why Blue Dogs vote with their "http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter/extensions/spring2009/Loomis.pdf"&rt;party 88% of the time and a majority supported TARP, the auto bailout, and the stimulus. So when looking at Blue Dog opposition to health care reform, remember that Blue Dogs are Democrats first. They support the goal of universal health care which makes negotiating a compromise likely.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Moreover, politics forces vulnerable Democrats representing Republican leaning districts to support the bill. If they support the current plan, they anger constituents. If they oppose the bill, they look ineffectual and risk a primary challenge. If they kill health care reform, they create a Democratic image of extreme liberalism and incompetence. All scenarios increase the likelihood of defeat. Their best chance is to pass something and hope it works as well as predicted. Recognizing the political consequences of defeat and the potential long term political benefits of passage, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid will sacrifice some members to get a bill.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                So in spite of the pitfalls, “health care reform” will pass – though probably not in its current form.  Democrats are likely to drop some controversial features to appeal to independents while making a large down payment on universal health care that pleases the Democratic base.  Remember, health care reform will cost Democrats politically in 2010 but no bill will cost them more.</div&rt; Article originally appeared in the August 14, 2009 edition of the Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=91 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=91 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:59:37 CST With the fundraising totals being filed for Tennessee's 2010 gubernatorial race, two things are clear: the GOP has a leg up on the race and Bill Haslam is cementing himself as the man to beat. According to the "http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090716/NEWS02/907160342/1009/Haslam+raises+most+for+Tennessee+governor+s+race"&rt;Tennessean, Republicans outraised Democrats 3 to 1 or $6.8 million to 1.74 million. Just as important, three separate Republicans outraised the top 2 Democrats combined. While this does not guarantee a Republican governor, the fundraising totals reflect higher candidate quality and greater excitement. Most importantly, it shows a greater confidence that Republicans will win the governor's mansion in 2010. Campaign contributors are strategic individuals who give to those they believe can win and the numbers shows professionals think 2010 will be a GOP year. And while contributors give to individuals for policy and personal reasons, they will not invest large sums in candidates who they doubt can win. Breaking down the races by party, Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam established himself as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination raising $3.9 million compared to $1.3 million each for Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and Congressman Zach Wamp. Haslam's lead is not surprising considering that he is the candidate of the business wing of the TN GOP, especially since his family founded Pilot Oil. Moreover, he is unofficially supported by Senator Lamar Alexander, the godfather of the TN GOP. It also looks like the Nashville business community which has funded Alexander and Bredeson is getting behind Haslam. Wamp counters that this is not as important as he leads the "http://www.zachwamp.com/?p=888"&rt;polls. However, Wamp is misreading the polls. Wamp only leads Haslam 22%-15% with Ron Ramsey taking 7%. With 52% of Republicans undecided, Haslam is in better financial shape to raise his name recognition and get his message out. We should not write Wamp off though. If he continues to raise $1.3 million, or better yet more than $1.3 million every six months, he can remain competitive because campaign money has marginal returns after a point. In addition, both Wamp and Ramsey will attack Haslam as the frontrunner so every dollar for the other indirectly helps both -- as long as they maintain their contributions. Potentially troubling for Wamp is that $1.3 million is the most that he ever raised for a congressional campaign. If we add the $364,000 left in his congressional campaign committee, that only gives him $1.66 million. He will have to put his financial team in overdrive to play catch up but luckily he has a strong financial base in Chattanooga. Ramsey is bragging about his financial haul of $1.3 million because he could only raise money after the legislative session ended, which reduced his time to fundraise. However, Ramsey announced an exploratory bid in February which notified potential donors of his intentions and to consider that when making decisions. For both Wamp and Ramsey, the next reporting cycle is extremely important. The first cycle is the easy money of politics. In the first cycle, candidates can tap their friends and loyal supporters. The next cycle, a candidate's ability to raise funds depends more on his policy positions, campaign hires, grassroots support, and ability to win. Haslam's strong showing will convince many that he is the man to beat which makes it easier to raise money. Wamp has hired Bob Davis, former TN GOP Chair, to run his campaign and his contacts should help. But knowing that he wanted to run, Wamp should have been using his perch on the House Appropriations Committee to raise money to transfer to his gubernatorial race. Ramsey is in better position than Wamp and so even though he is trailing in the polls, I would probably place Ramsey as the main challenger at this point. Ramsey has been traveling the state for years to elect Republicans to the State Senate. He knows many of the grassroots and the financiers of the TN GOP. His work has earned their loyalty giving him a wider, more diverse fundraising base which should keep him in the game. Plus, his perch as Lt. Governor increases his ability to raise money from individuals and groups interested in bills going through the legislature. Wamp cannot rely on this as much because PACs focused on federal legislation are less inclined to give to a member who is running for a state office. Shelby County District Attorney Bill Gibbons raised $417, 765. His best, and really only ,hope is for the three East Tennesseans to split the vote while he wins Shelby County. However, the money raised by the Big Three insures that they can compete in vote rich Shelby County. Turning to Democrats, the race is shaping up to be a race between West Tennesseans Mike McWherter, Jackson business man and the son of former governor Ned McWherter, and State Senator Roy Herren of Dresden. McWherter outraised Herren $650,30 to 607, 941. However, the poor fundraising of the Democrats has led to speculation that others, like Senator Jim Kyle, may enter the race. Regardless, the anemic totals of Democrats compared to Republicans shows the long road Democrats face and the less excitement among Democrats for their candidates. As the race continues, McWherter and Herren will continue to battle for the votes of West TN, the historic base of TN Democrats. They key will be who can win in the urban areas. McWherter is probably the favorite as the choice of the TN Democratic Party establishment and name recognition by proxy via his father. This can be seen in his early poll lead of "http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/07/14/tn-guv-poll-pretty-much-everyone-still-undecided-in-race-thirteen-months-away/"&rt;23%-13% over Herren. Herren will probably have to outraise McWherter to counter that though 34% of undecided Democrats should give Herren, and any other Democrat, hope of winning. Probably most disappointing among Democratic candidates is Ward Cammack. He is positioning himself as a Bredeson-Obama clone. Like Bredeson, he is a successful businessman with ties to Republicans who can be a problem solver. Like Obama, he is emphasizing environmental politics and outreach to the young and liberal social activitists. Yet, his $189,467 is disappointing considering $112,000 of it comes from donations or loans from himself. If he is not willing to self-finance his campaign, his race is probably over. If he self-finances, early money, like yeast, raises dough and brings in more money. So while the race for the TN governorship still has a long way to go, finanical totals show that the Republicans are starting the campaign in a strong position while the Democrats are having problems leaving the blocks. Yet, candidates must remember that the race is not a sprint but a marathon so they must continue to raise money, raise name recognition, develop solid policies to solve our problems, build solid organizations to get out the vote, and gain media buzz if they want to continue in their positions or make a move toward the lead. http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=90 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=90 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:06:59 CST <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;The recent sordid events involving Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC), Senator John Ensign (R-NV), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) should prove one thing: character matters. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;And rightfully so. As Dartmouth College’s Linda Fowler suggests representative government poses two risks when we delegate our power to make decisions to others. First, officials may pursue their interest rather than their constituents or nation’s interest. Second, officials may make unacceptable tradeoffs requiring sacrifices (i.e., higher taxes, reduced or no benefits, criminal or civil liability, physical harm) from particular groups to achieve their policy objectives. This is why we say elected officials hold offices of “public trust.” We only want people worthy of our confidence making life altering and life and death decisions. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Unsurprisingly, this concern with character is not new. In Federalists #51, James Madison recognized that humans are not angels and concluded that we need to divide power among branches of government to prevent abuse of power and to insure a “government of laws and not of men.” The Founders recognized that character or “the combined moral or ethical structure of a person,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary, is important because it influences who we are, our priorities, the performance of our duties, our relationships with other people, and how we view the world. And our character, once formed, tends to persist which means it will affect performance in office. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;So contrary to explanations that it is only “sex” and that one’s private life does not affect one’s public performance, private indiscretions are usually manifestations of larger character flaws that can have public consequences. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;To see this, let’s ignore the sexual infidelity for a moment. Do you trust someone who leaves the country to visit his mistress without letting anyone know his whereabouts potentially leaving the state leaderless if a crisis develops (Sanford)? </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Would you trust someone who has an affair with a top aide’s wife, especially if that aide was his best friend, and then helps his friend land a high paying private sector job after the friend finds out (Ensign)? </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Would you trust someone who convinces an aide to claim fatherhood of a child with a woman whom the candidate had an affair with, even while his wife battles cancer, and who then runs for office knowing a scandalous time bomb is ready to explode (Edwards)?</span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Or consider some other recent sex scandals. Would you trust someone like former Governor Elliot Spitzer (D-NY), a former attorney general, who regularly visited prostitutes in a state where prostitution is closely connected to organized crime making him susceptible to blackmail? Or would you trust someone, like Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who claims to support family values but regularly visited prostitutes? </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;Probably not. These decisions show irresponsibility, callousness toward friends and loved ones, a desire to deny mistakes and cover up problems, reckless judgment, and hypocrisy. Moreover, they show disrespect for their wife and children, women (viewing them as nothing but sex objects), and those less fortunate (no one grows up wanting to be a prostitute). None of these traits would ever make anyone’s list of desired qualities of public officials. Now, do you really want that same person to decide whether we go to war, who does and does not receive health care, which businesses are too big to fail, and what our spending priorities should be? </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;At their heart, these scandals have one thing in common: the individual puts himself before others – his family, staff, supporters, and the nation. And this arrogance and selfishness is more than a private character flaw when that person holds high office.   </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Yet, character should not be the sole criteria of an elected official. Persons of high moral character can be ineffective leaders (e.g., Jimmy Carter). An official’s vision, experience, political skill, temperament, intelligence, and other qualities are also important. However, character is a basic requirement. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;<span style="font-size: 11pt"&rt;                Therefore, persons of low moral character should not serve in government leadership positions. And when their lack of character is proven, they should show some character and resign. </span&rt;</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt; </div&rt; A revised version of this blog appeared in the July 10, 2009 edition of the The Jackson Sun http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=89 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=89 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:04:07 CST   <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                With the end of the Minnesota recount, Democratic Senator Al Franken gives Democrats the magical 60 seats needed to end Republican filibusters. Already, progressives are pushing Senate leaders to enact their agenda and Republicans are decrying the impending Armageddon. In reality though, Democrats gained responsibility for government and all its problems while our constitutional system will limit their exercising the power they wished for.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Now, Democrats own Washington, D.C. lock, stock and barrel. With control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they can no longer blame George W. Bush for the country’s problems. They have the ability to end Republican obstruction so the future of health care, immigration, and education reform, card check, and the cap and trade bill as well as economic recovery, deficits, etc. is completely in the Democrats’ hands.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Yet, 60 votes do not guarantee Democratic success. The 60 votes include 58 Democrats and two independents (Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders) who consistently vote Democratic. Of those 58 Democrats, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts are in poor health and may not return to the Senate leaving Democrats with 58 seats.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Plus, our constitutional system requires officials to be responsive to their constituents. This produces moderates like Ben Nelson of Nebraska who will buck the party line and forces moderate liberals like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to choose between party and state. It also produces progressives like Sanders and Tom Harkin of Iowa who oppose compromising with moderates because they believe political circumstances favor progressives.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Then there are two vulnerable Democratic Senators in conservative or centrist states up in 2010 (Michael Bennett in Colorado and Harry Reid in Nevada) who cannot antagonize constituents and get reelected. This is especially problematic for Senate Democratic Leader Reid who has approval ratings in the 30s. This produces a reliable 54-55 seat coalition led by a nervous Reid worried about his constituents’ views in Nevada.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                And this does not take into account geographical interests. Midwest states rely heavily on coal for energy and possess large blue collar workforces who are most economically vulnerable and threatened by a cap and trade bill. Immigration, deficits, and the Democrat’s social agenda threatens Southern Democrats. Some environmental policies threaten Western Democrats.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Consequently, the most important benefit of 60 votes is leverage to make bills more liberal. Working from a fairly solid block of 50 liberals, Democrats do not need to compromise with moderates or Republicans as much to win votes. They can offer minor concessions to allow moderates to save face and still get most of what they want.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Realizing this, Obama and Congressional leaders are taking political advantage of the economic crisis to successfully move their agenda. So far, Democrats have shown remarkable unity. Thus, they passed cap and trade in the House and are making good progress on universal health care in both chambers. If they pass these historic and far-reaching bills, the country’s values will change and Democrats are likely to dominate politics for a generation.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                This political opportunity increases the chance that they will become more partisan, especially when bipartisan outreach has largely failed. However, a partisan strategy would result in Republicans waging all out war bringing the Senate to a standstill.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Democrats need to remember that the stimulus bill passed the Senate and cap and trade passed the House because of moderate Republicans. Moreover, a partisan strategy would burn bridges with Republicans like Iowa’s Charles Grassley and Utah’s Orrin Hatch who are working in good faith with Democrats on universal health care. This would make it more difficult to gain their support in the future. Finally, bipartisanship insures Republican support for programs even when Democrats lose power.  </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Sixty Senate seats is both an opportunity and a risk. Democratic success changes the economic and political environment. Failure perpetuates partisan dischord and provides Republicans an opportunity to regain power. The choice is up to Democrats. Beware what you wish for.</div&rt;   http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=88 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=88 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:38:10 CST   <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Just when Republicans thought that it could not get any worse, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter switches parties, Rush Limbaugh publicly fights with Colin Powell, and a recent Pew Center poll shows Republican Party identification at 23%, close to its post-Watergate low.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Yet, Republicans can rebound and win again. However, one requirement for Republican revival is for classical liberalism and traditional conservatism – two pillars of modern conservatism – to reconcile.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                On its face, classical liberalism and traditional conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Classical liberalism emphasizes individual liberty free from constraints of government. From John Locke, liberalism took two major ideas. First, there is a distinction between public and private matters so that differences should be tolerated as long as they do not threaten the public order. Second, Locke identified liberty with property because of the close connection between preserving one’s life and earning a livelihood.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The emphasis on property laid the foundation for capitalism which argues that the rational self-interest of individual consumers and firms – the invisible hand – would promote the public good by making more high quality, affordable products that people wanted. The natural evolution of these ideas is found in the libertarian and pro-business wing of the Republican Party which favors small, unintrusive government.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Traditional conservatism, on the other hand, thinks people are deeply flawed which leads them to be skeptical of liberal claims that people are completely rational. Therefore, conservatives emphasize civil society more as churches, families, and private organizations are the key to the social fabric that restrains and checks self-interest. Moreover, custom and tradition have evolved over time and reflect the accumulated wisdom of history and should not be abandoned quickly.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Consequently, conservatives are principled pragmatists who support gradual change that preserves the best of society while adapting to changed circumstances. These ideas are seen in social conservatives who support individual freedom that does not threaten the public order.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Classical liberals and traditional conservatives first reconciled in the Industrial Age as contemporary liberalism focused on redressing the excesses of capitalism and curing social ills by promoting social welfare programs. Classical liberals and traditional conservatives could focus on saving capitalism, which proved the most effective means of distributing goods, and promoting morality, which constrained individual self-interest and the abuses of the Gilded Age. This coalition favored a small government that minimally regulated business while promoting and protecting the social order that provided for ordered liberty.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Today, classical liberalism’s glorification of individual choice contributed, in part, to the short term financial decisions that crippled the auto industry and the financial and housing sectors while undermining important social institutions like the family, religion, and private associations. Moreover, traditional conservatism failed to explain how abortion, homosexual rights, etc. relates to civic virtues like personal responsibility, honesty, and hard work.  </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The solution is for classical liberals and traditional conservatives to reconcile their ideas and realize that markets function best in a vibrant moral order that restrains self-interest.  This “new fusion conservatism” would emphasize that markets produce better and cheaper goods than government. Yet, they can also admit that markets sometimes fail and that government needs to prevent monopolies, incomplete information, economic actions that have consequences for non-producers (e.g., pollution), and extreme inequality that cause market distortions. </div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Consequently, conservatives can oppose government run health care by providing tax credits or vouchers so everyone can buy health insurance, supporting regulations that require transparency in corporate decision making and financial documents so markets work properly, and providing incentives for energy independence which would reduce pollution.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Moreover, conservatives should emphasize the importance of civil society by promoting family friendly policies and vital social institutions like churches and schools. They must acknowledge that a society cannot flourish when almost 40% of all births occur outside of marriage resulting in children who are more likely to be poor, have behavioral problems, abuse drugs, etc. Furthermore, conservatives should continue to support charter schools, testing, and public and/or private school choice bringing competition and accountability to the education monopoly. These policies promote upward mobility and create a strong, stable middle class.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                The old joke is that Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years because Moses would not stop to ask for directions. Yet, the directions for a conservative revival are there. Will conservatives take them?</div&rt;   Article orignally appeared in the Jackson Sun on June 5, 2009 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=87 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=87 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:35:46 CST <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;After 100 days, is President Barack Obama making the grade? Based on his performance so far, he earns an “A.” But a degree in presidential success takes at least four years and passing many more tests.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                To his credit, Obama has chosen intelligent, experienced, and skilled aides and has managed them and the government well. He also has controlled his media image, successfully communicated his message, and defined the Republicans as the “party of no.” These two things combined with large majorities in congress have enabled him to pass his stimulus bills, expand the child insurance program, and pass the Ledbetter fair pay act.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Most importantly, Obama is restoring America’s confidence and improving America’s image abroad. After years of “Bush fatigue,” Obama has demonstrated leadership by clearly breaking with the past by ending torture, promising to close Gitmo, regulating carbon dioxide, focusing more on Afghanistan, expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and apologizing to the world for past transgressions and promising to be more open.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Consequently, more Americans believe that America is on the right track than the wrong track for the first time in five years, consumer confidence is up, and world leaders are giving Obama rave reviews. This improves the chances that he can enact his agenda, improve the economy, and advance America’s interest.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Yet to continue to earn good grades, Obama should improve in several areas. First, Obama needs to manage expectations better. In comparing himself to FDR and promising to be a transformative president, he is creating expectations that he cannot meet. In February, Obama asked congress to pass universal health care, reverse global warming, regulate the financial markets, enact education reform, and impose fiscal discipline – this year. These policies are too complex and far-reaching for congress to handle all at once. Failing to meet his expectations will lessen his public approval and damage his reputation with the political elite making the coming years more challenging.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Second, he needs to more actively engage congress. His style so far is to set the agenda and then allow congress to write the bill. This is useful in that it helps to build consensus. But it also means that he can lose control over the process. Greater involvement in developing legislation with congress minimizes the risk of alienating congress by suggestion revisions after the fact or signing politically damaging bills.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Third, remember that Teddy Roosevelt spoke softly but also carried a big stick. Obama has done well speaking softly but can he persuade his friends and coerce his enemies? So far, NATO is not sending more troops to Afghanistan, North Korea is testing ballistic missiles, and Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. Listening does not help if you cannot convince others to do what you want.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Fourth, impose fiscal discipline. A stimulus during a recession is defensible. Trillion dollar deficits after the recession are not. Yet, his stimulus package will raise the baseline expectation for government spending. No one expects his proposed cuts to pass. He underestimates the costs of universal health care. And he refuses to reform entitlements which make up about 60% of the budget. Overall, his economic plan increases inflationary pressures and acts as a tax on the next generation.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Fifth, return to postpartisanship. Reaching out to Republicans is difficult when you challenge their motivations, use straw man arguments to attack their position, and make false statements about them. The hypocrisy of promising change and then acting partisan will undermine his appeal to independents.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                Sixth, limit your exposure. The times demand Obama take an active role. Yet, his hyperactivity gives him ownership of America’s problems. If his policies fail, the alternative narrative of Obama as a narcissistic celebrity will reemerge and potentially replace his leadership persona. He needs to let others take ownership so they can be lightening rods when things get worse.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt;                So while 100 days does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions, preliminary results are positive. But the most challenging courses lie ahead, and Obama is not guaranteed to make the Dean’s List.</div&rt; <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"&rt; </div&rt; Originally appeared in the Jackson Sun on May 1, 2009 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=85 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/blog.cfm?ID=85 sevans@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 04 May 2009 08:35:19 CST