Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Top Websites
It has been a busy week, but a productive one. I thought I would spend this week reviewing some of my favorite political websites. They range from humorous to informative, but they are all sites that I have used to great effect at some point.
Today's site is www.fivethirtyeight.com. This site was really useful to me during the 2008 election because of their excellent poll coverage. For example, they are the only U.S. based site that seems to have useful information on the upcoming UK elections. They also do a great job of providing actual data analysis to back up the political opinions that they express. While there is a liberal lean to this site, it is one that is out in the open and pretty moderate. One of the more interesting sidebars right now focuses on how likely a state's Senate seat is to switch parties in the fall (I'll give you a hint, not looking good for Dems). All in all, this site has a really refreshing mix of fact and opinion and is usually pretty entertaining.
Today's site is www.fivethirtyeight.com. This site was really useful to me during the 2008 election because of their excellent poll coverage. For example, they are the only U.S. based site that seems to have useful information on the upcoming UK elections. They also do a great job of providing actual data analysis to back up the political opinions that they express. While there is a liberal lean to this site, it is one that is out in the open and pretty moderate. One of the more interesting sidebars right now focuses on how likely a state's Senate seat is to switch parties in the fall (I'll give you a hint, not looking good for Dems). All in all, this site has a really refreshing mix of fact and opinion and is usually pretty entertaining.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Senate Cooperation
John McCain warned that Democrats should be prepared for little to no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year. Hey John, how will that be different from the behavior of Republicans in the first part of the year??
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Political Compass
So I found this fun website a long time ago, but rediscovered it today. It's called Political Compass, and through a short test, it purports to be able to measure where you fall politically on a grid representing both economic and social views. It is a fascinating website, and I highly recommend checking it out, even if just to take the test. Here is an excerpt from the site followed by my compass.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
Confusing court decisions on religion...
So, yesterday I found a couple of interesting articles related to court decisions on religious issues. One of the main reasons they were interesting is that both were cases related to limiting religious expression in school, and I disagreed with the Supreme Court and the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court for entirely different reasons. In the first case, the 9th Circuit Court argued that in Western States, children can continue to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They argued that atheist parents had no grounds in their case that the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. You know, the whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" thing? Who would have thought that adding "under God" to the Pledge would give anyone the impression that schools were trying to establish the existence of a deity? Here is the article:Pledge of Allegiance
While the Supreme Court has been irritating me lately with a variety of asinine decisions, (most notably the idea that giving massive amounts of money to political campaigns is free speech) I was not expecting to disagree with the court on the issue of restricting religious expression. In this case, the court rejected an appeal by students to overturn their school's ban on playing 'Ave Maria' at graduation. What is most amazing is that it would be an orchestral version with no lyrics. Soooo, unless certain notes now have religious significance, I don't understand the problem. As a singer, this issue is particularly murky for me. I sang plenty of religious music in high school and college and personally enjoyed it as a piece of artistic output rather than a religious expression. Kind of like enjoying the Bible for its story-telling and allegorical significance without believing in all the magic trick parts. While the composers obviously meant their music to be religious in nature, I feel that I can separate the art from the religion in this case. I realize this may seem hypocritical given the first paragraph of this post, but I never said I was 100% consistent. :-) Here is that article: Ave Maria
While the Supreme Court has been irritating me lately with a variety of asinine decisions, (most notably the idea that giving massive amounts of money to political campaigns is free speech) I was not expecting to disagree with the court on the issue of restricting religious expression. In this case, the court rejected an appeal by students to overturn their school's ban on playing 'Ave Maria' at graduation. What is most amazing is that it would be an orchestral version with no lyrics. Soooo, unless certain notes now have religious significance, I don't understand the problem. As a singer, this issue is particularly murky for me. I sang plenty of religious music in high school and college and personally enjoyed it as a piece of artistic output rather than a religious expression. Kind of like enjoying the Bible for its story-telling and allegorical significance without believing in all the magic trick parts. While the composers obviously meant their music to be religious in nature, I feel that I can separate the art from the religion in this case. I realize this may seem hypocritical given the first paragraph of this post, but I never said I was 100% consistent. :-) Here is that article: Ave Maria
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A fantastic op-ed piece
I have been thinking a lot over the last day or so about the health care debate and the bill that Obama signed this morning. On the one hand, I am not so fiscally liberal that I think government can provide everything to everyone. On the other hand, however, our health care system is broken, and the private sector seems unwilling or unable to fix the problem. Health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States, a truly troubling statistic.
I was about to write a long post summarizing many of my thoughts about the Republican Party's opposition to the bill, but Bob Herbert of the New York Times pretty much wrote what I was going to say(albeit more eloquently than me). Here is his Op-Ed. Onward to immigration reform. And you thought health care was partisan!
I was about to write a long post summarizing many of my thoughts about the Republican Party's opposition to the bill, but Bob Herbert of the New York Times pretty much wrote what I was going to say(albeit more eloquently than me). Here is his Op-Ed. Onward to immigration reform. And you thought health care was partisan!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care
The health care bill passed tonight by a somewhat healthy margin of 219-212. I say healthy because as recently as this morning, there were serious doubts about whether it would pass at all. Given the Democrats' large majority in the House, though, some would say the bill should have passed by a much larger margin. There is one major reason why the margin is not surprising though: reelection.
If one looks at the House districts where Democrats voted no on the bill, a fairly obvious pattern emerges. Almost all are in politically moderate or even slightly conservative districts. Most likely, many of these Democratic House members were elected on the coattails of large Obama turnouts. Their political reality, however, is that much of their district's moderately conservative electorate is opposed to the health care legislation, and most likely a majority feels this way. They faced a difficult choice tonight: vote with their party and listen to the President, or vote the way their constituents wanted them to. While a call from Obama may have given them pause, most Congressmen in these districts realized that while his reelection bid in 2012 may be influenced by the outcome of tonight's vote, this fall feels a lot closer.
So the answer to the question of why Democrats voted against the bill is simple: survival. It remains to be seen whether voting 'no' will be enough to save these moderate Dems, or if 1994 will repeat itself.
If one looks at the House districts where Democrats voted no on the bill, a fairly obvious pattern emerges. Almost all are in politically moderate or even slightly conservative districts. Most likely, many of these Democratic House members were elected on the coattails of large Obama turnouts. Their political reality, however, is that much of their district's moderately conservative electorate is opposed to the health care legislation, and most likely a majority feels this way. They faced a difficult choice tonight: vote with their party and listen to the President, or vote the way their constituents wanted them to. While a call from Obama may have given them pause, most Congressmen in these districts realized that while his reelection bid in 2012 may be influenced by the outcome of tonight's vote, this fall feels a lot closer.
So the answer to the question of why Democrats voted against the bill is simple: survival. It remains to be seen whether voting 'no' will be enough to save these moderate Dems, or if 1994 will repeat itself.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Coffee Party
Given how much time I spend paying attention to politics and political parties, it surprised me that I hadn't heard about a large new political movement called the Coffee Party. They are holding events all across the country at coffee shops today. The party appeals to me because they are trying to get people to have meaningful dialogues about the problems facing our country, which none of the other political parties seem to be concerned about. While they claim they are all about diverse viewpoints, I suspect many will see this as a direct response to the Tea Party movement, and it may well draw a distinctly left of center crowd. Now that I am pretty close to renouncing the Democratic Party and becoming an independent, it will be worth watching what this party accomplishes. They have some interesting stuff on their website and I encourage you to check it out if you get a chance.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Texas' New Curriculum Standards Are Scary
I noticed an article on fellow teacher Hopi Hawk's Facebook status today that made me cringe a bit. Whenever I see "Texas" and "Curriculum Standards" in the same headline I assume the worst. I told myself not to jump to conclusions and clicked on the link. Unfortunately, my (admittedly) stereotypical assumption was correct. Texas changed their curriculum standards based on the recommendations of a combination of professors and right wing religious figures. This has broad-reaching effect because Texas is such a big purchaser of textbooks and so they drive much of the regional textbook manufacturers' designs.
Most of the changes are somewhat laughable, and you can read in detail here. Suffice it to say they are all changes to create a more conservative view of history. For example, we'll conveniently leave out Thomas Jefferson's views on separation of church and state if they don't fit our ideology. Or, we should probably change the word "capitalism" to "free enterprise." I guess if your economic system has recently avoided utter collapse because of irresponsibility and a lack of regulation, it's time for a name change. Don't get me wrong, there are some teachers that spew forth an endless stream of liberal propaganda, but for those of us that really put effort into being non-biased, this type of state-mandated obfuscation of the truth is infuriating. We should be teaching students to be critical thinkers, to read both sides of an issue and make up their own minds, not setting a biased agenda from the start! I am proud of the fact that when I had students give me feedback on my government class today after finals, more than one student wrote that they were frustrated they couldn't figure out my political leanings. This is one teacher that would switch states were this kind of nonsense to occur in Oregon.
I guess what upsets me the most is that this is yet another example of partisanship gone awry. The Texas state school board voted along party lines to pass these amendments. Why does every decision, from large national issues down to the local level, have to be so bitter and divisive these days? While there has always been partisan bickering in America, there was usually a compromise in the works once both sides had gotten their say. Politicians seemed to generally understand that their loyalties were to their constituents first, country, and THEN party. Now every political debate seems to consist of either ramming an idea through (think Patriot Act, Iraq War or Health Care legislation) or scoring political points through appearances on skewed "news" programs to try to get a soundbite or two for a 30 second ad spot.
I guess I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to work in Texas.
Most of the changes are somewhat laughable, and you can read in detail here. Suffice it to say they are all changes to create a more conservative view of history. For example, we'll conveniently leave out Thomas Jefferson's views on separation of church and state if they don't fit our ideology. Or, we should probably change the word "capitalism" to "free enterprise." I guess if your economic system has recently avoided utter collapse because of irresponsibility and a lack of regulation, it's time for a name change. Don't get me wrong, there are some teachers that spew forth an endless stream of liberal propaganda, but for those of us that really put effort into being non-biased, this type of state-mandated obfuscation of the truth is infuriating. We should be teaching students to be critical thinkers, to read both sides of an issue and make up their own minds, not setting a biased agenda from the start! I am proud of the fact that when I had students give me feedback on my government class today after finals, more than one student wrote that they were frustrated they couldn't figure out my political leanings. This is one teacher that would switch states were this kind of nonsense to occur in Oregon.
I guess what upsets me the most is that this is yet another example of partisanship gone awry. The Texas state school board voted along party lines to pass these amendments. Why does every decision, from large national issues down to the local level, have to be so bitter and divisive these days? While there has always been partisan bickering in America, there was usually a compromise in the works once both sides had gotten their say. Politicians seemed to generally understand that their loyalties were to their constituents first, country, and THEN party. Now every political debate seems to consist of either ramming an idea through (think Patriot Act, Iraq War or Health Care legislation) or scoring political points through appearances on skewed "news" programs to try to get a soundbite or two for a 30 second ad spot.
I guess I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to work in Texas.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Obama trying to earn that Nobel? Good luck.
Today the Obama administration trumpeted their success in getting Israelis and Palestinians to agree to indirect talks. U.S. envoy George Mitchell will be the intermediary. How sad that we consider getting two countries to talk through a third party a peace process. It reminds me of two angry 4th graders having a fight, refusing to talk to one another, and using a friend as their messenger.
Both sides have grudgingly agreed to talks, and Israel expressed frustration when the U.S. questioned their building of settlements in violation of a moratorium on settlement building. Israel's settlement construction on the eve of talks shows they don't take the peace process seriously, and the fact that many Hamas' leaders have thumbed their noses at the talks show that they likely don't take it seriously either. There is a reason both sides may not actually want the talks to succeed. The following is my rough translation of their thoughts:
Israeli Government: Please, U.S., butt out of our business and let us continue to play both the victim and the oppressor. It has worked for us for a long time, keeps our military stocked with a never-ending supply of young people, and lets us justify the horrible and unfair misery we inflict on the Palestinian people. If peace is achieved, we will have to deal with all the Zionist extremists living in far-flung settlements in the West Bank, and maybe even face our own misdeeds.
Hamas: We exist mainly because of all the injustices of the Israeli government. If we reach peace with Israel, the Palestinian people may realize that our acts of violence have done nothing but draw more incursions of violence from the Israeli military into Palestinian territories. We feed off anger and fear, don't take these away from us through conflict resolution!
I realize of course, that the situation is far more complex than this and involves water rights, security, thousands of years of history, and countless other things, but sometimes it just boils down to government officials acting like children and we have to call it like we see it.
Both sides have grudgingly agreed to talks, and Israel expressed frustration when the U.S. questioned their building of settlements in violation of a moratorium on settlement building. Israel's settlement construction on the eve of talks shows they don't take the peace process seriously, and the fact that many Hamas' leaders have thumbed their noses at the talks show that they likely don't take it seriously either. There is a reason both sides may not actually want the talks to succeed. The following is my rough translation of their thoughts:
Israeli Government: Please, U.S., butt out of our business and let us continue to play both the victim and the oppressor. It has worked for us for a long time, keeps our military stocked with a never-ending supply of young people, and lets us justify the horrible and unfair misery we inflict on the Palestinian people. If peace is achieved, we will have to deal with all the Zionist extremists living in far-flung settlements in the West Bank, and maybe even face our own misdeeds.
Hamas: We exist mainly because of all the injustices of the Israeli government. If we reach peace with Israel, the Palestinian people may realize that our acts of violence have done nothing but draw more incursions of violence from the Israeli military into Palestinian territories. We feed off anger and fear, don't take these away from us through conflict resolution!
I realize of course, that the situation is far more complex than this and involves water rights, security, thousands of years of history, and countless other things, but sometimes it just boils down to government officials acting like children and we have to call it like we see it.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Obama is finally unable to hide his frustration
I have been wondering over the past few weeks about whether Obama's patience would begin to flag. Not only does he have to contend with a Republican minority fiercely opposing anything he proposes, but he has a Democratic majority dragging their feet and failing to flex their muscles. At times, lately, his tone has almost been one of a parent trying to mediate between 535 obnoxious, ornery children packed into one giant minivan of uselessness. CNN finally caught Obama losing his patience a bit during the meeting between congressional Republicans and the president last week. At this point, it's almost too bad we can't vote to take away Congress' healthcare. I bet they'd find a solution then.
Here's the video:
Obama losing his patience
Here's the video:
Obama losing his patience
Friday, February 26, 2010
What a time to decide to be fiscally responsible...
Good thing Senator Jim Bunning is retiring this fall, because I think if he ran for reelection, he'd have a lot of unemployed people leading the charge against him. He was the lone Senator blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits today. When Jeff Merkley (one of our OR senators incidentally) was speaking in criticism of Bunning's comments, Bunning said, "Tough shit." under his breath.
Well, Bunning, where was your fiscal responsibility when you voted for the Iraq War? You choose NOW to suddenly decide $10 billion is worth filibustering over? We spend that in a month in our current wars. Where was your fiscal responsibility when you voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and didn't reduce any other spending to make up for the loss of revenue? So fiscal irresponsibility is fine when it benefits people like you, old white guys with great healthcare coverage and a nice cushy salary, but when it benefits people struggling in a recession it's fiscally irresponsible? Senators like you are why so many people are disgusted with Congress. Have a nice, relaxing, taxpayer-funded retirement you old fart.
Well, Bunning, where was your fiscal responsibility when you voted for the Iraq War? You choose NOW to suddenly decide $10 billion is worth filibustering over? We spend that in a month in our current wars. Where was your fiscal responsibility when you voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and didn't reduce any other spending to make up for the loss of revenue? So fiscal irresponsibility is fine when it benefits people like you, old white guys with great healthcare coverage and a nice cushy salary, but when it benefits people struggling in a recession it's fiscally irresponsible? Senators like you are why so many people are disgusted with Congress. Have a nice, relaxing, taxpayer-funded retirement you old fart.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
OK, even I am confused about healthcare
So, here's my problem with the Democrats' healthcare plan: How are we supposed to understand it? Like so many other government plans, it started out as something most Americans supported, and then through a series of bureaucratic tweakings and special interest amendments, has now become a 1000+ page behemoth that most people don't approve of. Obama seems to be struggling with his role as chief legislator.
BUT, he is not the only one to blame. Congressional Democrats seem to be more concerned with getting their dip into the pork barrel by dragging their feet, and Republicans seem rather unwilling to compromise even as many of the things they call for are added to the bill. One thing is certain, the White House needs to do a better job of communicating its plan to the American people. There's a lot of evidence that if people knew what was actually in the bill, they would be more likely to say they support it.
So, I guess here is my thought for each party:
Democrats: Communicate more clearly to America, stop being a bunch of wusses and pass a reasonable healthcare plan.
Republicans: Your strategy of treading water and refusing to cooperate with Obama until you (big maybe) regain a majority in Congress in the fall isn't fooling anyone. P.S. Obama said he would try to reach across the aisle and listen to your thoughts, he didn't promise he would adopt your conservative ideas.
BUT, he is not the only one to blame. Congressional Democrats seem to be more concerned with getting their dip into the pork barrel by dragging their feet, and Republicans seem rather unwilling to compromise even as many of the things they call for are added to the bill. One thing is certain, the White House needs to do a better job of communicating its plan to the American people. There's a lot of evidence that if people knew what was actually in the bill, they would be more likely to say they support it.
So, I guess here is my thought for each party:
Democrats: Communicate more clearly to America, stop being a bunch of wusses and pass a reasonable healthcare plan.
Republicans: Your strategy of treading water and refusing to cooperate with Obama until you (big maybe) regain a majority in Congress in the fall isn't fooling anyone. P.S. Obama said he would try to reach across the aisle and listen to your thoughts, he didn't promise he would adopt your conservative ideas.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Establishment Clause vs. the Free Exercise Clause
There has been an interesting debate in Oregon over the last few months about the issue of teachers wearing religious garb while in the classroom. While Oregon was one of only 3 states that did not allow teachers to wear head scarves, turbans and other religious garments, the legislature voted today to eliminate this ban, and once the governor signs the bill into law, schools will have one year to write new rules for teachers.
I am somewhat torn on this topic, as it is really an interesting battle between the two main components of the freedom of religion portion of the first amendment. The establishment clause lays out the idea that the government will not establish a particular religion, and the free exercise clause says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion they desire without government interference. What then do we do when teachers' religious dress is protected by one but maybe violates the other?
Opponents of the change make the argument that KKK members and other extremists will be able to express their views because of this new law. My response to this is that the KKK is not a religion, but rather a political group. The new rules can be written in a way that makes it clear teachers are not to use their freedom to wear religious dress to attempt to influence students. Considering that the origin of the ban in Oregon was a KKK attempt to target nuns and alienate religious groups from the education system, it is hard to defend not allowing these garments.
While there is no doubt a chance that there will be a few lawsuits and people attempting to push the envelope, we need to remember that people who enter the field of education do it because they want to help kids. How many crazy whacko klansmen are out there lurking, just waiting for a chance to sue the school district? The better question is: How many great teachers have been prevented from working with Oregon's students because the state wouldn't let them wear religious garments while they teach? I guess we're about to find out...
Related article from The Oregonian
I am somewhat torn on this topic, as it is really an interesting battle between the two main components of the freedom of religion portion of the first amendment. The establishment clause lays out the idea that the government will not establish a particular religion, and the free exercise clause says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion they desire without government interference. What then do we do when teachers' religious dress is protected by one but maybe violates the other?
Opponents of the change make the argument that KKK members and other extremists will be able to express their views because of this new law. My response to this is that the KKK is not a religion, but rather a political group. The new rules can be written in a way that makes it clear teachers are not to use their freedom to wear religious dress to attempt to influence students. Considering that the origin of the ban in Oregon was a KKK attempt to target nuns and alienate religious groups from the education system, it is hard to defend not allowing these garments.
While there is no doubt a chance that there will be a few lawsuits and people attempting to push the envelope, we need to remember that people who enter the field of education do it because they want to help kids. How many crazy whacko klansmen are out there lurking, just waiting for a chance to sue the school district? The better question is: How many great teachers have been prevented from working with Oregon's students because the state wouldn't let them wear religious garments while they teach? I guess we're about to find out...
Related article from The Oregonian
Monday, February 22, 2010
Time For Nuclear Power
In an era of partisanship in government, it was refreshing to hear Obama throw a bone to the Republican side of the aisle in his State of the Union address. I completely agree that it is time to return to the use of nuclear power in America. Clean Coal technology is one of those buzzword topics that politicians (including Obama) use to try to secure votes in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, but the scientific possibilities of burning coal in a truly "clean" fashion are roughly equivalent to the chances that Congress will vote themselves a pay cut to help decrease the national debt.
Nuclear energy is efficent, relatively cheap, and safe. It will provide a relatively stable energy source for generations to come, and could help the United States provide enough electricity for the expansion of such ideas as electric cars. Anything that will help us break our oil addiction and let us break ties with "friends" like Saudi Arabia is a welcome change in my mind.
For those concerned about the environmental effects, many have been reduced or eliminated over the past few decades since we last built a new nuclear plant in America. Here is a great article and interview that illustrates what I am talking about:
Nuclear Power's Time Has Come
Maybe this is finally something that both parties can get on board with, and we can move towards an America that is energy independent. I think we can all agree that is in our nation's best interest.
Nuclear energy is efficent, relatively cheap, and safe. It will provide a relatively stable energy source for generations to come, and could help the United States provide enough electricity for the expansion of such ideas as electric cars. Anything that will help us break our oil addiction and let us break ties with "friends" like Saudi Arabia is a welcome change in my mind.
For those concerned about the environmental effects, many have been reduced or eliminated over the past few decades since we last built a new nuclear plant in America. Here is a great article and interview that illustrates what I am talking about:
Nuclear Power's Time Has Come
Maybe this is finally something that both parties can get on board with, and we can move towards an America that is energy independent. I think we can all agree that is in our nation's best interest.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Return of Plainclothes Politics
So it has been a year since I started and then abandoned this blog, and I am feeling like I need a new outlet for my thoughts about the current state of politics in America. It is time to start blogging again. We have undergone a lot of changes in the last year, The glow of Obama's historic election has faded, and the Tea Party movement is now in full swing. Regardless of political affiliation, however, the vast majority of Americans now agree that government is broken. Two polls in the last week have placed Congress' approval rating at around 15%, and I am certainly included in the 85%.
My students have been asking me lately what I think will happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, so I will make this first post in the new year one of prediction.
2010: This will be very similar to 1994, when Democrats lost over 50 seats in the House. the difference this time, however, is that not only are Democrats unpopular, many people are not any more excited about Republicans. My hope, then, is that this election is one in which incumbents lose large amounts of seats, and it just so happens that Democrats hold many more of those seats. There will likely be a lot more turnover in Congress this November than in the past several elections. Congressional leadership will get a much-needed shakeup, as Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid in Nevada.
2012: While Dems will lose a lot of seats, Republicans will only grow more divided over the next two years, as they fail just as badly as Democrats to fix the growing problems that conservatives look to them to fix. Newt Gingrich will emerge as the surprise nominee for Republicans, and the Ron Paul libertarians and Sarah Palin Tea Partiers will tear the party apart. The economy will turn around in 2011, and Obama will manage to take most of the credit, as Americans will still be sour towards Congress. Obama will win in a close reelection bid.
My students have been asking me lately what I think will happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, so I will make this first post in the new year one of prediction.
2010: This will be very similar to 1994, when Democrats lost over 50 seats in the House. the difference this time, however, is that not only are Democrats unpopular, many people are not any more excited about Republicans. My hope, then, is that this election is one in which incumbents lose large amounts of seats, and it just so happens that Democrats hold many more of those seats. There will likely be a lot more turnover in Congress this November than in the past several elections. Congressional leadership will get a much-needed shakeup, as Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid in Nevada.
2012: While Dems will lose a lot of seats, Republicans will only grow more divided over the next two years, as they fail just as badly as Democrats to fix the growing problems that conservatives look to them to fix. Newt Gingrich will emerge as the surprise nominee for Republicans, and the Ron Paul libertarians and Sarah Palin Tea Partiers will tear the party apart. The economy will turn around in 2011, and Obama will manage to take most of the credit, as Americans will still be sour towards Congress. Obama will win in a close reelection bid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
