tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/john-boehner-7393/articlesJohn Boehner – The Conversation2022-11-18T12:14:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1948942022-11-18T12:14:45Z2022-11-18T12:14:45ZNancy Pelosi was the key Democratic messenger of her generation – passing the torch will empower younger leadership<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496096/original/file-20221118-12-4r4lvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C107%2C5964%2C3880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nancy Pelosi's stepping aside will leave the door open for others.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/speaker-of-the-house-nancy-pelosi-is-greeted-by-senate-news-photo/1244855354?phrase=pelosi&adppopup=true">Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she will not run for another senior post opens the door for a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/us/politics/pelosi-jeffries-clark-house-democrats.html">new generation of national leaders in the Democratic Party</a>. </p>
<p>Pelosi confirmed she is <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/video/pelosi-steps-down-from-house-leadership-ends-groundbreaking-era/">stepping away from leadership positions</a> on Nov. 17, 2022, a decision that jump-starts a process that has long been desired by younger Democrats: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/17/pelosi-future-house-republican-majority/">generational change</a> and with it, potentially, new ideas to take the party forward.</p>
<p>That shift to younger leadership was shelved in February 2020. Then – after <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-calendar-isnt-helping-biden-but-his-iowa-performance-points-to-bigger-problems/">poor performances by Joe Biden in early primaries</a> – Democratic primary voters unified with astonishing swiftness behind his candidacy. The thinking was that a veteran party establishment official was needed to block Donald Trump and that the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/908524877/how-progressive-democrats-fared-this-primary-season-and-what-it-means">progressive agenda desired by some younger Democrats</a> might pose too great an electoral risk. </p>
<p>Turnover in the youth-challenged leadership of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses has similarly been frozen since then, with all Democratic legislative leaders over 70. As a <a href="https://batten.virginia.edu/people/gerald-warburg">professor of public policy who served as an assistant to members of leadership in both houses of Congress</a>, I understand why Democratic voters opted for stability in 2020. But now the coming change may be welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike as an opportunity to pass the torch to a new, post-baby boomer generation with fresh ideas. Generational change may soon come on both sides of the political aisle.</p>
<h2>Power as a means, not an end</h2>
<p>Pelosi’s decision is both practical and timely. It comes as the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1133125177/republicans-control-house-of-representatives">Republicans retake the House</a> with a wafer-thin majority and a divided <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/16/house-gop-analysis-congress">GOP caucus at war with itself</a>. Even former Republican speakers John Boehner and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/17/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker/">Newt Gingrich</a>, Pelosi’s longtime critics, are acknowledging her historic accomplishments, while noting her legacy will now include stepping away while at the top of her game.</p>
<p>Pelosi rose to become the most powerful woman in American history and the most effective legislator of the 21st century. She accomplished this at a time when polarization in politics meant she has endured vilification from political opponents that has had a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/david-depape-pleads-not-guilty-federal-charges/index.html">direct and violent impact</a> on her family.</p>
<p>A key to understanding the Pelosi legacy is weighing what she chose to do with her power. As I have <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3674393-pelosi-lawrence-and-the-arc-of-power%EF%BF%BC/">written elsewhere</a>, some politicians seek power fundamentally as a means to an end. For them leadership posts offer the tools needed to improve citizens’ lives or to advance an ideology. Such figures can be seen across the political divide in Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Gingrich. You don’t have to agree with their politics to see that they sought power primarily as a means to change policy: They had active legislative agendas.</p>
<p>Other leaders, however, seem to seek out power as part of a never-ending vanity project. </p>
<p>The history of Pelosi’s two four-year speakerships – from 2007 to 2010 and then again from 2019 to 2022 – provide evidence that she had an action agenda. Pelosi is on record repeatedly insisting that when one gains power, one should use it – and risk losing it – to promote the national interest and protect the most vulnerable. </p>
<p>Her record bears out that approach. In 2008 through 2010, she pushed controversial measures through the House, including the <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program">TARP economic bailout</a>, the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, and the cap and trade climate bill – risking her political capital and imperiling the Democratic majority in the House.</p>
<p>Similarly in 2022, she pursued an ambitious legislative agenda despite concerns that it might contribute to a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/10/23/republican-wave-midterms-congress">Republican “red wave</a>” in the midterm elections. That wave did not materialize, but historically <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-16/republicans-win-control-of-the-us-house-with-narrow-margin">small Republican gains</a> were enough to mean she would lose the speakership of the House.</p>
<h2>Managing imperiled presidencies</h2>
<p>The longevity of Pelosi’s tenure is all the more remarkable given the fact that she worked alongside four different – and often troubled – presidencies. She <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/january-4-2007-nancy-pelosi-becomes-first-woman-elected-speaker-house-representatives/">first became House speaker in 2007</a> under the lame duck presidency of George W. Bush. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A woman in a light jacket stands behind a man in a suit as he waves." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=838&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=838&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=838&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1054&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1054&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496055/original/file-20221118-23-g25i8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1054&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nancy Pelosi looks on as President George W. Bush delivers the State of the Union address.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/january-2000-credit-rich-lipski-twp-washington-dc-president-news-photo/104570328?phrase=pelosi&adppopup=true">Rich Lipski/The The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Then she served that role under Obama just before his “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2010/11/03/131046118/obama-humbled-by-election-shellacking">shellacking” in midterm elections</a>; Trump through <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics-features/trump-second-impeachment">two impeachments</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/january-6-us-capitol-attack-128973">an insurrection</a>; then Biden, saddled with bitter national divisions. The Pelosi speakership was the one constant as four different presidents dealt with national threats. </p>
<p>Yet Pelosi managed to work through a deeply polarized Congress scores of bills that impacted the lives of everyday Americans. Her legislative accomplishments include her stewardship of the landmark <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html">Affordable Care Act</a>. She worked with Bush to <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080213-3.html">rescue the American economy</a> in the financial crisis of 2008 – when the Republican caucus refused to provide votes needed to shore up the economy. </p>
<p>She also worked with the reluctant Trump administration to provide <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/12/27/950133658/trump-signs-covid-19-relief-package-after-threatening-to-derail-it">pandemic relief</a> amid a global health crisis and in early 2022 shepherded through Congress the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/">largest infrastructure investment bill</a> ever. </p>
<h2>Toughness leading a divided caucus</h2>
<p>Profiles of Pelosi invariably comment on her toughness, a quality admired by both Obama and <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/boehner-pelosi-republicans/">Boehner</a>. She also led a Democratic caucus often divided by ideology, region, culture, identity politics and generational differences. Some on the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/01/politics/pelosi-progressives-infrastructure-biden-agenda">left suspected her</a> establishment ties. Critics on the right gleefully <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/nancy-pelosi-and-coming-battle-house-leadership/575278/">vilified her as some “San Francisco socialist</a>.”</p>
<p>Even the professorial Obama confessed he sometimes felt <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/02/family-feud-pelosi-at-odds-with-obama-032863">hectored by her passionate advocacy</a>. Republicans campaigned repeatedly on the simple pledge to “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/31/pelosi-attack-gop-strategist-condemn/">Fire Pelosi</a>,” spending hundreds of millions on crude ads devoid of a legislative agenda.</p>
<p>One can disagree with her positions, however, while still recognizing that Pelosi has been a fierce and effective advocate advancing her majority’s agenda.</p>
<p>The record shows that her results-oriented approach has been consistent in its goals and clear in its principles. Such clarity has provided leadership to the nation in fractured times. Her singular focus on advancing her caucus’ legislative agenda has made her the key Democratic Party messenger of her generation. </p>
<p>She has now had the courage to step back, making way for a new leaders and new ideas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerald Warburg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced she will step aside from senior leadership. It could lead to generational change in the Democratic Party.Gerald Warburg, Professor of Practice of Public Policy at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499812015-10-29T18:23:11Z2015-10-29T18:23:11ZPaul Ryan just accepted the worst job in American politics<p>Republicans voted overwhelmingly to make Paul Ryan the new <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/politics/paul-ryan-set-to-take-over-as-speaker-hoping-to-manage-the-chaos.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=53875293&pgtype=article">speaker</a> of the House of Representatives on Thursday, but the Wisconsin congressman has no reason to celebrate. He just got the worst job in American politics. </p>
<p>In theory, the House speaker is an immensely powerful office. Among other things, the House speaker controls when and whether <a href="https://rules.house.gov/about">legislation gets voted on</a>. </p>
<p>But since the late 1980s, the job of House speaker has been a career killer for most of the people who have held the position. </p>
<p>And today the job is harder than ever. </p>
<p>Ryan comes to the speakership at a time when the United States House of Representatives is the most dysfunctional legislative body in the Western world. To succeed in office, Ryan must do something that no other Republican leader has been willing to do: take on the extremists in his own party. </p>
<h2>A dead-end job</h2>
<p>History suggests Ryan has a Herculean task ahead of him.</p>
<p>Since Tip O’Neill retired in 1986, the roster of House speakers reads like a casualty list. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-01/news/mn-1334_1_public-man-ethics-committee-official-conduct">Jim Wright</a>, O’Neill’s successor, was driven from office by a scandal involving his personal finances. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/thomas-s-foley-former-house-speaker-dies-at-84/2013/10/18/7d2c7df4-380d-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html">Tom Foley</a>, Wright’s successor, lost his own congressional seat during the Republican tidal wave of 1994. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich110798.htm">Newt Gingrich</a>, the author of the GOP’s stunning congressional victories in ‘94, was subsequently driven from office by an intraparty revolt. And <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/livingston122098.htm">Bob Livingston</a>, Gingrich’s designated successor, was forced to resign by a sex scandal before officially assuming his duties.</p>
<p>Ryan’s most recent predecessors did not fare much better. </p>
<p>Despite large Republican majorities in the early 2000s, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1028/Dennis-Hastert-s-guilty-plea-could-keep-scandal-details-out-of-public-view-video">Dennis Hastert</a> failed to get President George W Bush’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2005/03/bushs_first_defeat.html">social security</a> and <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19475868/ns/politics/t/immigration-bill-suffers-major-defeat-senate/#.VjIldFWFOUk">immigration</a> reform proposals approved by Congress. </p>
<p>John Boehner ran into the same obstacles. The fundamental problem Boehner faced was his inability to control the House Republican caucus. With a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans deeply divided, Boehner <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/next-speaker-will-face-the-same-difficulties-with-conservatives.html">failed</a> to get <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-conservative-groups/">significant</a> legislation enacted into law.</p>
<p>In recent years, only the Democrat Nancy Pelosi has achieved legislative success as House speaker. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress in 2009, Pelosi helped shepherd through the House the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/policy/24health.html?_r=0">Affordable Care Act</a>, the single most important change in American health care since Medicare’s enactment in <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/president-johnson-signs-medicare-bill-on-july-30-1965-005129">1965</a>. </p>
<p>But Pelosi’s period of legislative effectiveness was exceptionally brief. Republicans booted her from the speaker’s chair when they won control of Congress in <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/poll-closing-key-east-coast-races-balance-power-line/">2010</a>. In the end, Pelosi achieved far less as House speaker than Democrats expected she would when Barack Obama took office in January 2009.</p>
<h2>The pernicious Hastert rule</h2>
<p>Now it’s Ryan’s turn to sit in the hot seat. </p>
<p>Like Boehner and Hastert before him, Ryan’s biggest problem is his own caucus. Republicans hold <a href="http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/">247</a> of 435 House seats, which on paper is a comfortable majority.
But thanks to a misguided rule adopted by Dennis Hastert, Ryan has a much weaker hand to play than the powerful speakers of the mid-20th century. </p>
<p>Under the traditional majoritarian rules of the House, Ryan could successfully govern from the center like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0106.html">Sam Rayburn</a> in the 1940s and 1950s, <a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000364">John McCormack</a> in the 1960s and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/carter-oneill/">Tip O’Neill</a> in the 1970s and 1980s. All Ryan would need is a bipartisan coalition of 218 Republicans and Democrats to get legislation through the House.</p>
<p>But Hastert changed the House’s rules in the early 2000s. In the process, he empowered the arch-conservative wing of House Republicans to block legislation. </p>
<p>As speaker, Hastert would allow floor votes only on issues that had majority support within the Republican caucus. The <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/even-the-aide-who-coined-the-hastert-rule-says-the-hastert-rule-isnt-working/277961/">Hastert Rule</a> effectively gave a legislative veto to the 110-120 most conservative House Republicans. Even if a bill had the support of over 300 members of Congress, Hastert would not allow a vote to be taken if it lacked the support of a majority of Republicans. </p>
<p>As House Speaker, John Boehner <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/306179-boehner-commits-to-hastert-rule-on-immigration-reform">lacked</a> the political <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/john-boehner-hastert-rule-immigration-093511">courage</a> to dump the Hastert Rule. Only in the last few days did Boehner finally show independence and defy the far right wing of his caucus by negotiating a modest but sensible <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/us/politics/congress-white-house-budget-deal-boehner.html">budget deal</a> with the White House. </p>
<p>But it was too little too late. Boehner left office on Thursday as one of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/09/the-113th-congress-is-historically-good-at-not-passing-bills/">least effective</a> House speakers in history.</p>
<h2>The Tip O’Neill model</h2>
<p>Ryan must learn from Boehner’s mistakes. </p>
<p>To that end, Ryan should model his speakership on Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic speaker of the House. Although Democrats held big House majorities throughout O’Neill’s tenure, O’Neill worked closely with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/23/paul-ryan-the-hastert-rule-and-democracy-on-the-hill/paul-ryan-would-obstruct-democracy-by-backing-the-hastert-rule">Republicans</a>, including President <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Common-Ground/2013/1205/Budget-negotiators-take-heed-The-art-of-the-deal-according-to-Reagan-and-Tip-O-Neill">Reagan</a>. Together they modernized the tax code, saved social security, passed comprehensive immigration reform, and funded a defense buildup that helped win the Cold War. </p>
<p>O’Neill realized that in order to pass legislation that stands the test of time, the speaker must take a bipartisan approach. </p>
<p>Ryan would be wise to follow in O'Neill’s footsteps. If Ryan embraces bipartisanship, he has a historic opportunity to restore legislative authority and political effectiveness to the House speaker’s office. </p>
<p>But if Ryan cowers before the obstructionist arch-conservatives as Boehner did, the position of House speaker will remain the worst job in politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49981/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered independent. </span></em></p>To make it work, he’s going to need to be braver than Boehner.Anthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/491402015-10-14T20:33:51Z2015-10-14T20:33:51ZHow the GOP circus act compromises American Democracy<p>Most observers identify the Freedom Caucus, formerly known as the Tea Party Caucus, as the source of a palace coup resulting in the “retirement” of John Boehner, and the refusal of his hand-picked successor, Kevin McCarthy, to take possession of the gavel as speaker of the House.</p>
<p>The simple fact is that Boehner and McCarthy knew this reactionary faction of the GOP was gunning for them. Boehner simply quit before he could be fired; McCarthy quit while he was ahead.</p>
<p>The two leaders were targeted because they were willing to cut deals with Democrats. This is a problem for all of us because compromise is key if democracy is to function as it should. As political theorists Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9657.html">suggest</a>, compromise is necessary to govern – to help citizens realize the benefits they seek and protect their rights. In short, compromise is essential to the health of democracy.</p>
<p>Yet, since the GOP regained the House, and the Tea Party faction took over the party four years ago, House Republicans have refused to compromise at every turn. </p>
<h2>A list of refusals</h2>
<p>Their steadfast refusal to compromise resulted in the failure to reach comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. Further, the GOP’s refusal to recognize the Affordable Care Act (ACA) threatened to leave millions of Americans <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/04-tea-party-parker/parker_teaparty.pdflink">without health care</a> and led to a government shutdown in 2013. They’ve threatened another shutdown over the funding of Planned Parenthood.</p>
<p>One may argue that House Republicans wish to remain true to their principles. They’ve defended their refusal to compromise on comprehensive immigration reform by citing conservative principles. The Senate bill, with its <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/04-tea-party-parker/parker_teaparty.pdf">path to citizenship</a>, rewards those who’ve broken the law, they say. They defended not compromising on the ACA on conservative grounds: it represents an expansion of state power. More recently, they defend defunding Planned Parenthood based on their belief in the right to life.</p>
<p>At first glance, these are all defensible conservative positions. The problem is that they don’t explain why conservative icons, generally admired by the Tea Party wing of the party, agreed to compromise in the past. Consider the founding fathers, a group often invoked by House conservatives. History tells us that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists failed to see eye-to-eye on the future of the new nation. However, they eventually compromised, paving the way to sustaining the model of modern democracy.</p>
<p>Even Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most revered figure among American conservatives, cut deals with congressional Democrats, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/1986-amnesty/story?id=18971179">granting amnesty</a> to three million illegal immigrants with the Immigration Reform and Control Act and signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986.</p>
<p>Compromise, in short, is not anathema to conservatism. Indeed, the fact that Boehner was willing to cut deals while maintaining a lifetime conservative <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/09/12/john-boehner-is-a-conservative-so-what-do-you-call-house-republicans-opposing-him/">score</a> of 94 (out of 100) from the American Conservative Union proves it.</p>
<h2>Anxious about change</h2>
<p>So, why was Boehner forced to surrender his gavel? Why is the Tea Party faction so dead set against compromise? The late historian Richard Hofstadter provides an answer. He <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/">argued</a> that some on the right find change frightening. They wish to hold fast to the status quo. Of course, he was referring to the far right during the early 1960s as they reacted to the civil rights movement.</p>
<p>As Matt Barreto and I <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9954.html">have argued</a>, the Tea Party is similar to what Hofstadter observed in the 1960s. </p>
<p>Tea Party House members represent Americans who are anxious about the social changes that have taken place in the United States in the last few years. These changes include the election of the first nonwhite president, the increasing visibility of women in positions of power, the gay rights revolution, and the push to increase the rights of the undocumented.</p>
<p>Boehner’s forced retirement, and McCarthy’s inability to move forward with his candidacy, almost certainly had nothing to do with conservatism or lack of conservatism. It has more to do with a constituency riven with anxiety about a changing society. If they hope to avoid the same fate as former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who unexpectedly lost his primary to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat, House Republicans representing Tea Party-dominated districts must remain faithful to the preferences of their constituents, even if they know their actions are not in the interest of their constituents – or the country, in the long run.</p>
<p>Ironically, Boehner and McCarthy did what many politicians fail to do: they sacrificed political ambition for the common good. For Boehner, continuing as the speaker would have likely continued polarizing the GOP. Had McCarthy pressed on with his candidacy, the rift would have widened because he would have likely needed to secure votes from Democrats to win.</p>
<p>Healthy democracies require a loyal opposition: loyal to the principles on which the country was founded, capable of keeping the party in power honest, and able to furnish a credible alternative to the party in power. But a loyal opposition must exhibit some internal unity. In its present state, the GOP is in no position to play the role of loyal opposition.</p>
<p>The reactionary faction of the GOP has forced two strong voices of moderation out. Now, they would be wise to elect a speaker who will help them regain traction as the loyal opposition. They may find it instructive – comforting, even – to look at the examples of the founding fathers and Ronald Reagan. It’s important that the Republican Party gets its house in order and returns to playing its role as part of a well-functioning democracy in the United States.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49140/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There’s nothing anti-Republican about doing deals with the other side.Christopher Sebastian Parker, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/482032015-09-25T19:48:01Z2015-09-25T19:48:01ZBoehner resigns: scholars see trouble ahead for GOP<p><em>Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) called it quits Friday. He will leave his position – and his seat – at the end of October. Three scholars of American politics tell us what forced Boehner out and predict how his abrupt departure will resonate in the US Congress.</em></p>
<h2>The Tea Party strikes again</h2>
<p><strong>Christopher Parker, University of Washington</strong></p>
<p>For some, Speaker John Boehner’s resignation comes as a surprise. Why voluntarily resign from the third most influential position in American politics? </p>
<p>It’s quite simple: after four years of trying and failing, the speaker grew weary of trying to persuade some members of his caucus to compromise. On several occasions, the Tea Party faction of the GOP has refused to even attempt finding common ground with Democrats. From debt ceiling fights to government shutdowns (and threatened shutdowns), to comprehensive immigration reform, and now to Planned Parenthood, the speaker, an establishment conservative, has tried to persuade these reactionary conservatives to do the right thing. </p>
<p>Why did he have such a tough time with the reactionary wing of the GOP conference? As I have illustrated in <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9954.html">my book</a> on reactionary politics in the US, the Tea Party faction represents constituents fraught with fear and anxiety that their country is being “stolen” from them; it’s changing too fast. For these people, as <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/">Richard Hofstadter</a> pointed out many years ago, compromise is commensurate with capitulation to evil. </p>
<p>The battle between establishment and reactionary conservatives will continue for the foreseeable future. However, the reactionary faction won’t have John A Boehner to kick around any longer. </p>
<p><em>Christopher Sebastian Parker is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Washington. His book <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9954.html">Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America</a>, explores the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of the Tea Party. He is working on a second book about the Tea Party.</em></p>
<h2>In the age of Trump, Boehner’s days were numbered</h2>
<p><strong>Anthony Gaughan, Drake University</strong></p>
<p>By any reasonable measure, John Boehner is one of the most conservative speakers in the history of the House of Representatives. When Boehner became house speaker in 2010, the American Conservative Union gave his congressional voting record a career score of 94, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/09/12/john-boehner-is-a-conservative-so-what-do-you-call-house-republicans-opposing-him/">an almost perfect rating</a>.</p>
<p>But the extreme and unbending conservatives who now dominate the Republican Party <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rebels-give-boehner-another-chance-086426">never liked</a> Boehner. Notwithstanding his conservative voting record, the house speaker lacked the uncompromising zealotry and irresponsible rhetoric that the conservative Tea Party faction demands from Republican leaders. Boehner wanted to cut deals with the White House, while the Tea Party wanted to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07budget.html">shut down</a> the entire government. </p>
<p>One need look no further than the Republican presidential race to understand Boehner’s lack of appeal to extreme conservatives. In the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/24/fox-news-poll-outsiders-rule-2016-gop-field-support-for-biden-nearly-doubles/?intcmp=hpbt3">latest GOP polls</a>, Donald Trump and Ben Carson stand in first and second place, respectively. Trump and Carson are exactly the kind of leaders that Tea Party conservatives love: they lack government experience, they have a poor grasp of the issues, they take absurdly extreme policy positions and they make crudely offensive and deeply divisive statements on a routine basis. In the age of Trump and Carson, Boehner’s days were numbered.</p>
<p>There will be much talk in the days ahead of the brewing civil war between the conservative and establishment factions in the Republican Party. But in many ways, the so-called “civil war” within the Republican Party gives the establishment far too much credit. Establishment candidates have largely cowered before the Tea Party onslaught. </p>
<p>Indeed, just yesterday, Jeb Bush – the ultimate establishment Republican – declared that he wouldn’t give <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/24/jeb-bush-win-black-voters-with-aspiration-not-free-stuff/">“free stuff” </a>to African Americans to win their votes. Bush’s disgraceful racial demagoguery sounds a lot more like Donald Trump than Abraham Lincoln. It demonstrates the extent to which Tea Party toxicity has spread beyond the conservative base to poison the establishment itself. </p>
<p>One thing is certain: John Boehner won’t be the last victim the Tea Party claims. The extremists who dominate the Republican Party today won’t be happy until they have driven the entire party off a cliff. </p>
<p><em>Anthony Gaughan is an Associate Professor of Law at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. His academic specialties include civil procedure, evidence, election law, national security law, and political and constitutional history. He is a former United States Navy officer and an Iraq War veteran. He is the author of <a href="http://lsupress.org/books/detail/the-last-battle-of-the-civil-war/">The Last Battle of the Civil War: United States versus Lee</a>, 1861-1883.</em></p>
<h2>Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah</h2>
<p><strong>Jeanne Zaino, Iona College/NYU</strong></p>
<p>At the press conference announcing his resignation, a reporter told Boehner that he “seemed very relieved.” To which the speaker replied, “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6bWyhj7siEY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah’ from ‘Song of the South.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The song the speaker hummed is part of the opening credits for “The Wonderful World of Disney.” The music was also originally included in the animated film “Song of the South.” One has to wonder whether the speaker planned this seemingly “spontaneous” moment or not? </p>
<p>Whistling a “Song of the South” on your way out the door hardly seems accidental. It seems to portend that the GOP is fractured to a degree that it has now become ungovernable: fractured between not just the traditional North and South divide, but urban and suburban, wealthy and poor, white and nonwhite, and myriad other ways that make it almost impossible for our representatives to work together to govern effectively.</p>
<p>This may be why Representative Paul Ryan <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/paul-ryan-house-speaker-102526">has said</a> he’s not interested in Boehner’s job. Apparently Ryan – like so many others – sees serving as speaker as an impossible task.</p>
<p>If this were just about Boehner and the House, that would be one thing, but it isn’t. This is about the Republican Party as a whole. Very much like the Democratic Party of the 1970s and 1980s, the GOP is divided. We have seen this play out not just in Congress but on the campaign trail where the battle between the “establishment” and “outsiders,” the “hawks” and “isolationists,” the “libertarians” and more “traditional republicans” rages on. </p>
<p>After failing to capture the presidency in 2012, the GOP made a concerted effort to study and understand what went wrong. Their findings were captured in the <a href="http://goproject.gop.com/">“Growth and Opportunity”</a> report. Among other things they concluded that they “need to resolve and downplay internal divisions,” many of which had forced Mitt Romney too far to the right to win the general election. </p>
<p>Those who care about the health of the GOP may want to downplay internal divisions, but the announcement by Speaker Boehner today is just another in a long line of reminders that the chasm is deep and, at least in the short term, intractable. We are likely to see a battle for leadership which we haven’t seen for some time. While Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is the <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_quits_mccarthy_seen_as_successor-243839-1.html">odds-on favorite</a> to become the new speaker, we shouldn’t forget that is only because his predecessor, Eric Cantor, was <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-primary-election-results-virginia-107683">unexpectedly ousted</a> by the unknown Dave Brat in the 2014 primary.</p>
<p>If Cantor’s ouster wasn’t enough, in the current race for the 2016 GOP nominee Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Dr. Ben Carson sit on top of the polls. The fact that these three, none of whom has held elected office, are in the lead is another in a long line of indications that the chasm in the Republican Party is real and consequential. “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.”</p>
<p><em>Jeanne Zaino’s work has been published in journals such as Campaigns and Elections, Journal of Politics, Journal of Political Science Education and the Chronicles of Higher Education. Her most recent books are Adventures in Social Research: Data Analysis Using SPSS (Sage) and Core Concepts in American Government (Prentice Hall).</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered independent and a former Republican. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Sebastian Parker and Jeanne Zaino do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The speaker calls it quits after five years of trying to get Tea Party leaders to stop squabbling and play nice. The road ahead looks rocky for the GOP.Anthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityChristopher Sebastian Parker, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of WashingtonJeanne Zaino, Adjunct Professor, Political Campaign Management, NYU-SCS; Professor, Political Science, Iona College, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/454802015-08-10T19:52:35Z2015-08-10T19:52:35ZWhy the silence of moderate conservatives is dangerous for race relations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91197/original/image-20150807-27587-9ptaa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Letter from a Birmingham Jail - 1963
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_quote_from_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr%27s_Letter_from_a_Birmingham_Jail.jpg">Jason C Tillmann</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The past two years of racial turmoil have removed any and all doubt about the continuing significance of race in the United States. </p>
<p>Both whites and blacks <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf">have exhibited</a> increasingly negative views on race relations since 2011. A recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/05/us/05poll-doc.html">New York Times/CBS News poll</a> finds that Americans’ perceptions of racial progress have drastically deteriorated over the last year. </p>
<p>The current racial environment stands in stark contrast to 2008, when numerous commentators mused about <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=geQxhys4rf8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=post+racial+america&ots=t_Y7laDbI4&sig=CNt14M4XHXdUp-eKPMUXXAUXF_g#v=onepage&q=post%20racial%20america&f=false">a post-racial America. </a></p>
<p>We believe the post-racial narrative began to lose substantial support after George Zimmerman eluded incarceration for the murder of Trayvon Martin, reached a flashpoint with the shooting of unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson by a police officer, continued to loose steam with the high-profile killings of blacks such as <a href="http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/freddie-gray/">Freddie Gray</a> and <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-cop-verdict-servin-edit-0423-20150422-story.html">Rekia Boyd</a> and was permanently disabled after <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-charleston-43821">the grisly massacre </a>of nine black church members in Charleston, South Carolina. </p>
<p>Beyond such headline-grabbing events, race also affects the likelihood of obtaining a <a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/black-coll-grads-2014-05.pdf">job</a>, how one is treated at every stage in the <a href="http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data">criminal justice system</a> and even <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301395">health outcomes</a>. </p>
<p>Why does race continue to haunt us, 150 years after the Civil War, 50 years after the landmark civil rights legislation of the mid-1960s, and six years into the Obama presidency?</p>
<p>The persistence of racism, we argue, rests in no small part on the inability of moderate conservatives – from politicians like Speaker of the House John Boehner to columnists like The New York Times’ David Brooks – to recognize the ways in which it continues to affect the life chances of blacks. </p>
<p>We have been here before. </p>
<p>As social scientists well-versed in <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/civil-rights-and-making-modern-american-state">the history of the civil rights era</a> and the <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9083.html">backlash against it,</a> we see a direct parallel between today’s conservative moderates and those of the Jim Crow South to whom Martin Luther King Jr addressed his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963. </p>
<h2>The Birmingham Campaign</h2>
<p>“If you win in Birmingham, as Birmingham goes, so goes the nation.” </p>
<p>These were the words that longtime activist Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth used to encourage King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to come to Birmingham and take part in nonviolent direct action protests against segregation. </p>
<p>When they arrived, King, Shuttlesworth and the SCLC launched a formal campaign called <a href="http://crdl.usg.edu/events/birmingham_demonstrations/?Welcome">Project C</a> (C for confrontation) in which – through sit-ins at lunch counters and marches on City Hall – nonviolent protesters let Birmingham and the rest of the nation know that the city’s days of treating blacks as second-class citizens needed to end. </p>
<p>Attempting to quell the momentum, Birmingham issued an injunction barring further protests in the city. Two days later, on Good Friday, April 12 1963, King and a group of Birmingham Campaign supporters were arrested after they openly defied the injunction. </p>
<p>While in jail, King reflected on the slow pace of racial progress and placed the dire situation squarely at the feet of white moderates.</p>
<h2>Southern white moderates: a sacred middle ground</h2>
<p><a href="https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/letter-birmingham-jail">Letter from Birmingham Jail</a> was written in response to a <a href="http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/mlk_day/statement.html">Call For Unity</a>, a public statement by eight white clergymen who acknowledged that American racism was wrong but argued that direct action – protest in the streets – was too extreme. </p>
<p>They favored a less confrontational strategy – one that took place in the courts, an approach they hoped would avoid inciting further hatred and violence on the part of white reactionaries. </p>
<p>King’s letter does a skillful job in unmasking this type of lukewarm moderate support for civil rights and recasts it as shortsighted, condescending and ultimately dangerous to the black freedom movement. </p>
<p>King is particularly critical of white moderates who disapprove of black anger while turning a blind eye to the circumstances responsible for the anger. He explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Expressing grave disappointment, King ultimately concludes, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, the letter calls into question the tired refrain of “wait” for change, as moderates often believed blacks were impatient about the pace of progress. </p>
<p>In one of the most cited passages, King writes, “This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’”</p>
<p>Moderates occupied a sacred middle ground between the progressives and the reactionaries in the South, and King wanted their support.</p>
<p>He would not get it. </p>
<p>Southern reactionaries, led by Eugene (Bull) Connor, commissioner of public safety in Birmingham, feeling the ground shake beneath them, did not flinch in their defense of white supremacy.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3RxjSQnuKF4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Aided by the silence of southern moderates, the reactionary white establishment felt it had a green light to inflict harm on the black community. </p>
<p>With the world watching, they turned <a href="http://dp.la/exhibitions/exhibits/show/activism/civil-rights-demonstrations/birmingham-demonstrations">high-pressure fire hoses on black students</a>, allowed police dogs to attack demonstrators and arrested over 1,000 nonviolent protesters. </p>
<p>The violent events in Birmingham were instrumental in showing an international and a domestic audience the ugly side of American racism. </p>
<p>Soon after, moderate whites beyond the South <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5939918.html">became a key force </a> in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>
<h2>2015: moderate conservatives are still key</h2>
<p>Fast forwarding to today, the racial climate is eerily similar to what we observed more than 50 years ago. </p>
<p>However, now it’s the entire country, not just the South, that is riven with racial violence. </p>
<p>This time around, as one of us together with Matt A Barreto show in our book <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9954.html">Change They Can’t Believe In</a>, it’s the Tea Party pushing a reactionary agenda. And, much like their forebears during Jim Crow, moderate conservatives, who are relatively progressive on race, refuse to assert themselves where race is concerned.</p>
<p>If David Brooks, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=0">who has castigated the Tea Party</a> for their refusal to compromise and for having “no sense of moral decency,” represents the sentiments of moderate conservatives, it’s easy to see why race remains a problem in America. </p>
<p>Consider the following. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_timeseries_2012/anes_timeseries_2012.htm">We analyzed data</a> from the American National Election Study (2012) to investigate the distribution of reactionary relative to establishment conservatives among self-identified conservatives in the American electorate. </p>
<p>Our analysis indicates that approximately 22% of all conservatives identify strongly with the Tea Party. This means that approximately 78% of all conservatives are at least moderate.</p>
<p>But what do they say on race? </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/opinion/listening-to-ta-nehisi-coates-while-white.html?_r=0">his recent review</a> of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ latest book, <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/220290/between-the-world-and-me-by-ta-nehisi-coates/">Between the World and Me</a>, in The New York Times, Brooks essentially rejects the notion that the racial animus that results in violence remains a problem when he writes,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think you [Coates] distort American history. This country, like each person in it, is a mixture of glory and shame. There’s…a Harlem Children’s Zone for every KKK – and usually vastly more than one. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The effects of racism, in other words, at least these days, are mitigated by the opportunities this great country provides everyone. One way to read Brooks is that he is saying that race and racism are not as bad as Coates, and by extension, black folk, believe it is. </p>
<p>Similarly, John Boehner, speaker of the house and part of the conservative leadership, has downplayed racism – most recently <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/12/spineless-coward-john-boehner-refuses-condemn-donald-trumps-racism.html">in his response</a> to Donald Trump’s inflammatory comments about Mexicans. </p>
<p>And while far too many moderate conservatives sit by, it is the reactionaries who commandeer the racial agenda with, for instance, <a href="https://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/tea-party-nationalism/tea-party-news-and-analysis/504-trayvon-tea-party-racism">their lionizing of George Zimmerman</a> and <a href="https://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/race-racism-and-white-nationalism/574-national-socialists-militia-klan-and-tea-parties-respond-to-murder-of-michael-brown">their dismissal</a> of protesters in Ferguson as “blacks out of control” and “aboriginals.” </p>
<p>We believe this nation is, as it was in the 1960s during the Birmingham Campaign, at a crossroads in race relations. </p>
<p>The reality on the ground is that blacks are dying at an <a href="https://theconversation.com/look-for-the-patterns-in-charleston-43593">alarming rate</a> at the hands of agents of the state (law enforcement) as well as individual white citizens like George Zimmerman and Dylann Roof. </p>
<p>Combating such injustice will require moderate conservatives to take a bold stand. </p>
<p>We agree with King: moderates must not shrink in the presence of vocal white reactionaries or hide behind lofty color-blind rhetoric. </p>
<p>As King affirmed over 50 years ago, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One year on from Ferguson, the message of Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail could not be more relevant.Christopher Sebastian Parker, Associate Professor, Political Science , University of WashingtonMegan Ming Francis, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science , University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/413272015-05-18T10:17:33Z2015-05-18T10:17:33ZHow many ways can politicians ‘lie’? How a class led to a ‘truth’ report card for the 2016 election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81606/original/image-20150513-2483-y5nte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How often do politicians lie? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=EEIqf_pCfDs6JUL0McquJw&searchterm=politicians%20lie&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=256701232">People image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I regularly teach a course called <em>The Sociology of Television & Media</em> in which my students and I critically explore newscasts, entertainment programming and (both commercial and political) advertising. The theme that I use as a touchstone throughout the class is: What happens when, as a society, we begin to mix fantasy and reality together in mass media? </p>
<p>We discuss how a range of troubling outcomes emerge for a public that has difficulty telling truth from fiction. <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/horkheimer/">Max Horkheimer</a>, a German-Jewish sociologist, argued that this is part of what led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. </p>
<p>Once we lose our ability to detect lies, we become vulnerable to demagogues.</p>
<h2>Six categories of rhetoric</h2>
<p>About halfway through the semester, I have students deconstruct political ads, and we discuss practical resources for navigating the web of truths, half-truths and outright lies that proliferate unhindered during each election cycle.</p>
<p>One resource that I offer is <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact.org’s</a> Truth-o-Meter. Students fact-check politicians’ statements to determine how much, if any, truth is contained therein (they actually won a <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/">Pulitzer Prize</a> for their work fact-checking the 2008 election).</p>
<p>The first, and perhaps most important, takeaway from their work is that modern political statements cannot accurately be rated as simply “true” or “false.” So sophisticated has the art of mixing truth and lies become that the scale <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact</a> currently uses includes six separate categories of political rhetoric: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and “pants on fire” (for statements that aren’t just false but also completely ludicrous - and yet still stated as truth). </p>
<p>In essence, while there is still but one way to tell the truth, there are now at least five times as many acceptable ways to lie.</p>
<p>For example, John Boehner’s May 3 2015 statement on <em>Meet The Press</em> that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/03/john-boehner/john-boehner-we-spend-more-money-antacids-we-do-po/">“we spend more money on antacids than we do on politics”</a> is rated simply “false.” Fact-checking reveals that in the US, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/overall-spending-inches-up-in-2014-megadonors-equip-outside-groups-to-capture-a-bigger-share-of-the-pie/">we spent somewhere between US$3 billion and US$7 billion on elections in 2014</a> (depending on what money streams you include), while we spent less than $2 billion on antacids in the same year. </p>
<p>Boehner’s team was apparently trying to compare <em>global</em> sales of antacids (including all seven billion people on the planet) to <em>US</em> spending on elections (about 320 million of us) - a false comparison.</p>
<p>On April 23 2015, Hillary Clinton provided a good illustration of a statement that rates as a “half truth.” When addressing the Women in the World Summit in New York City, Clinton asserted that the US ranks <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-us-ranks-just-65th-world-gend/">“65th out of 142 nations”</a> when it comes to equal pay for women. The statistic comes from the <a href="http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/introduction-2/">World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Gender Gap Report</a>. </p>
<p>However, the primary measure generated by this report ranks the US 20th in gender equity. The ranking of 65th is taken from a subcategory in the report that relies on a survey of perceptions of executives rather than hard numbers. So, while it is technically true, it may actually be overstating the severity of the gender pay gap comparison.</p>
<h2>Whom can we trust?</h2>
<p>The second takeaway, though it may not be much of a surprise, is that there are_ no _politicians in this country that exclusively tell the truth. Every single one, to a greater or lesser extent, spins, bends, twists or breaks the truth.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is the price of power in our modern democracy, but we should find it at least a little troubling.</p>
<p>So where does this leave us? Well, knowing that every one of our politicians lies, the most important question, in my mind, becomes: Who is most often telling the truth and who is lying to us repeatedly in order to gain our support? </p>
<p>In other words, whom can and whom can’t we trust?</p>
<p>With this question in mind, I had my students add up the raw numbers for 25 major politicians (based on <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact’s</a> fact-checking over the past eight years) and write the results up on the board in rank order from most to least honest based on the data. The results were intriguing.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can we tell when politicians are lying to us? The short answer is no.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=h2pDbuXIcO8mUjxjIshkDQ&searchterm=lies%20&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=140770462">Lies image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the prototype point system was not particularly sophisticated (two points for each true statement, one point for each mostly true statement, zero for half-truths, etc.), the numbers revealed that many well-known politicians were abusing the truth far more than they were embracing it.</p>
<p>When I asked the class what they thought of the results, one student raised her hand and replied, “I’m not shocked.” Many of the others immediately nodded their heads in agreement. </p>
<p>I wondered if we’ve become so accustomed to the bending and breaking of the truth that we no longer expect truth from our leaders. Now we’re teaching the next generation not to expect it either.</p>
<p>After seeing these preliminary results, I was hooked.</p>
<h2>Generating ‘honesty’ report cards</h2>
<p>I quickly returned to my office and began running the numbers on a total of 42 politicians (Republicans and Democrats) with the greatest name recognition and included every current presidential hopeful who has expressed some level of interest in running in the 2016 presidential election, to boot.</p>
<p>As of May 5 2015, only 37 of the 42 politicians included have made 10 or more statements that have been fact checked in Politifact’s database, so I immediately set aside the other five politicians as having too small of a statement sample to consider in the results (the possibility for error being too significant). </p>
<p>I decided to grade our politicians the same way that I would grade my students if their assignment was to tell the truth. </p>
<p>They receive an A+ (100) if they actually tell the whole truth, a B (85) if what they say is mostly true, a C (75) if they tell a half-truth, a D (65) if what they say is mostly false, an F (55) if it is plainly a lie, and no credit (0) if they fail to take the assignment seriously at all (“pants on fire”). </p>
<p>Each politician’s <em>Honesty Score</em> is then calculated based on the overall percentage of their statements that are true, false or somewhere in between. The results are as follows (hold on to your socks): </p>
<p><em>0 A’s, 3 B’s, 22 C’s, 9 D’s, and 3 F’s.</em></p>
<p>As of May 2015, according to a synthesis of <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact’s</a> fact-checking of actual statements over the past eight years:</p>
<p><strong>The two most honest 2016 presidential hopefuls are:</strong></p>
<p>Republican: Jeb Bush [B-]</p>
<p>Democrat: Hillary Clinton [B-]</p>
<p><strong>The two least honest 2016 presidential hopefuls:</strong></p>
<p>Republican: Ted Cruz [D-]</p>
<p>Democrat: Lincoln Chafee [C]</p>
<p><strong>The only three politicians to receive failing grades:</strong></p>
<p>Michele Bachmann [F], Herman Cain [F], Donald Trump [F]</p>
<p><strong>Our three most powerful current representatives:</strong></p>
<p>Barack Obama [C+], John Boehner [C-], Mitch McConnell [C]</p>
<p><strong>The most honest politician in the US:</strong></p>
<p>Cory Booker [B-]</p>
<p>You can take a look at the results for yourself:</p>
<p><strong>2016 Presidential Hopefuls</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Notable Democrats</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Notable Republicans</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Keep in mind, this kind of data tells us nothing about the views the candidates hold, or their policies, or even what kind of a leader they may ultimately turn out to be. </p>
<p>It does, however, tell us something important about how often they tell the truth to the public, and that should be something we hold them accountable for. It will be interesting to see how these same political leaders fare six months or a year from now when the races have really started to heat up, particularly those who look like they may be viable presidential candidates. </p>
<p>As teachers, caught up in our own subject matter, we easily forget that our students are hungry to apply what they’re being taught in our classes to something meaningful in their own lives.</p>
<p>It is our obligation to offer each generation a sense of social responsibility, hope for the future and the practical tools that will allow them to build it for themselves.</p>
<p>Something like a yearly Honesty Report Card might serve us well at this point in our democracy’s evolution. At the very least, let’s use this idea as a starting point for some kind of political unity in this country. </p>
<p>Whether you are liberal or conservative, can’t we at least agree that our politicians should start telling us the truth?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41327/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ellis Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There may be only one way to tell the truth, but there are at least five ways to “lie.” And our politicians seem to be the master of this art. A scholar decides to teach this to his students.Ellis Jones, Assistant Professor of Sociology, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381452015-03-03T23:44:10Z2015-03-03T23:44:10ZNetanyahu address to Congress was more about domestic politics than Iran<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73708/original/image-20150303-31822-doobcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Benjamin Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to be invited to address Congress without a US president's consent or knowledge.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until Tuesday, Winston Churchill was the only foreign leader to have addressed the US Congress on three separate occasions. Now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has joined this very exclusive club. </p>
<p>Termed by some as a <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/netanyahu-s-moment_867715.html">“Churchillian moment”</a>, Netanyahu <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/3/8142825/netanyahu-speech-congress-transcript-read">used the opportunity</a> to warn the world of the danger of striking a deal with Iran that allowed it to keep its nuclear infrastructure. He described it as a bad deal – though he did not elaborate on what a “good deal” would look like. </p>
<p>Netanyahu’s introduction was more significant than the rest of his address, during which he received more than 20 standing ovations. First, Netanyahu declared that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The context of the address had far less to do with Iran than it did with politics – the domestic politics of the US and Israel, and the politics of the special relationship between the countries. </p>
<p>The invitation to address Congress came not from the White House, but from the House of Representatives Speaker, Republican <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/01/netanyahu-invite-is-a-symptom-of-boehners-grudge-match-against-the-u-s-constitution/">John Boehner</a>, keeping President Barack Obama out of the loop. It is the first time in US history that a foreign leader had been invited to address Congress without the president’s consent or knowledge. The White House described the Boehner-Netanyahu collusion as a breach of protocol. </p>
<p>But the invitation was much more than that. It was a cynical ploy to humiliate Obama and pressure him to take a tougher stand on the Iranian issue. Neither Boehner or Netanyahu made any attempt to disguise it: the plan to invite Netanyahu was ironed out between Boehner’s office and the Israeli embassy in Washington over a period of two weeks in January. The White House was notified of the invitation only after the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, had officially accepted it on behalf of Netanyahu.</p>
<p>In protest, around 60 Democrats <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/03/warren-democrats-netanyahu-boycott/24305849/">boycotted</a> Netanyahu’s address. Vice President Joe Biden announced in February that he would <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/06/joe-biden-netanyahu-speech_n_6633888.html">not attend</a>. Obama <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-netanyahu-speech-theater-and-nothing-new-20150303">said</a> on Tuesday that he was “too busy” to watch the speech, though having read the transcript, he told reporters there was nothing new in it. </p>
<p>As a further sign of the political storm caused by the Boehner-Netanyahu ploy, three major US TV networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/03/boehner-stunt-backfires-nbc-cbs-abc-televise-netanyahu-speech-congress.html">chose</a> not to televise the address. </p>
<p>Israeli partisan politics also overshadowed the pretext of Netanyahu’s address. Israel’s general elections are only two weeks away, on March 17. Netanyahu was <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-invited-address-us-congress-february-11-152733244.html">originally invited</a> to address Congress on February 11, but he asked to postpone it by three weeks, when campaigning is in full swing. The scheduling of the address at 10.45am Eastern Standard Time – the evening prime-time slot in Israel – also suggests that Netanyahu’s address was designed to appeal more to voters back home than to the US Congress.</p>
<p>The image of the incumbent prime minister addressing the US Congress on such a grave issue is supposed to be worth a couple of seats (or mandates). But, so far, the controversial move seems to have backfired. Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/319462#.VPY3simSzel">trails</a> the centre-left Zionist Camp alliance by two or three mandates. </p>
<p>House prices in Israel are <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4630157,00.html">spiralling out of control</a> and the economy is showing signs of <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4592961,00.html">slowing down</a>. Not only do many Israelis not seem to share Netanyahu’s existential anxieties about the prospect of a nuclear Iran, but they also accuse him of shirking his responsibilities by using the issue as a convenient tool to divert attention from domestic problems and the deadlock in negotiations with the Palestinians. </p>
<p>For many Israelis, the potential danger of a bad deal with Iran pales by comparison with the damage caused to US-Israeli relations by Netanyahu’s trickery. The personal rapport between Obama and Netanyahu has been strained for years. This recent incident has plummeted public relations between the countries to levels unseen for a <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.642814">generation</a>.</p>
<p>Though the strategic, intelligence and security links between the countries are largely unaffected by the two leaders’ disdain for each other, such personal antagonism at the highest level has certainly clouded the weather. As such, Netanyahu’s remark that the people of Israel “appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel” should not be taken for granted.</p>
<p>Netanyahu added: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was the perhaps the most important message in Netanyahu’s address. It was much more important than the chewed-up warnings about Iran, which were not too dissimilar to his 2013 warnings against the first deal with Iran. Netanyahu’s repentant mention of Obama’s support for Israel was not a half-hearted gesture. It was a personal, earnest and humble apology, designed to rectify a broken friendship. </p>
<p>After the controversy leading up to the address, the substance of Netanyahu’s message was predictably anti-climatic and repeated his previous well-trodden warnings. The Iranian regime was “as radical as ever” and would not change its behaviour; the lifting of the current sanctions would make Iran more – not less – aggressive; and Iran’s recent fight against Islamic State (IS) did not turn it into a friend of the US. Netanyahu warned that, with Iran and IS competing for the crown of militant Islam, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy. </p>
<p>Netanyahu’s demands of Iran are also neither novel nor helpful for the current negotiations. He warned that before current sanctions are lifted, the world should demand Iran stop its aggression against its neighbours in the Middle East, stop supporting terrorism around the world and stop threatening to annihilate the Israeli state. </p>
<p>Such vociferous rhetoric may have won the applause of the US Congress, but it is unlikely to go down in history as a Churchillian moment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Asaf Siniver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For many Israelis, the potential danger of a bad deal with Iran pales in comparison to the damage caused to US-Israeli relations by Benjamin Netanyahu’s trickery.Asaf Siniver, Associate Professor (Reader) in International Security, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/365852015-01-22T17:23:52Z2015-01-22T17:23:52ZMost Americans want diplomatic engagement with Iran<p>In his State of the Union address, the President’s core message was that the US has emerged strong from the twin crises caused by the 2001 terrorist attacks and the 2008 global recession. </p>
<p>And the challenge he posed to Congress on foreign policy is this. Do we want to continue to operate in crisis mode – being fearful, reactive, and prone to overuse military force in ways that exacerbate security problems and contradict basic values? Or can Congress support the President’s efforts to exercise “smart” global leadership and to work closely with other countries to address shared threats and protect the planet?</p>
<p>This choice is particularly stark when deciding what to do about Iran’s nuclear program. </p>
<h2>Two years of steady progress</h2>
<p>Over the past two years, vigorous multilateral diplomacy has accomplished what could not be done so long as memories of the 1979 hostage crisis made diplomatic isolation, military threats and economic sanctions the only policy options that American leaders thought they could use. </p>
<p>While negotiations with the United States and other world powers are <a href="http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131124_03_en.pdf.">moving forward</a>, Iran has suspended or even reversed its most worrisome nuclear activities, and been <a href="http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2014-62.pdf.">more transparent</a> about other aspects of its program. </p>
<p>The President underscored some potential benefits of successful diplomacy. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms makes the US and its allies more secure. Achieving this through multilateral diplomacy means avoiding war with another Islamic country.</p>
<p>Reaching agreement in principle before world leaders gather in New York later this spring to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the most important thing that can be done at this point to prevent other countries from making or using nuclear weapons, too.</p>
<p>Obama warned Congress that passing legislation for new sanctions against Iran would not strengthen his hand. On the contrary, it would guarantee the failure of negotiations and go against what the American people want them to do. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Let me be clear. If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Public opinion backs the president - Republicans too</h2>
<p>Public opinion research conducted by myself and colleagues at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland (CISSM) substantiates both of these points. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://cissmdev.devcloud.acquia-sites.com/sites/default/files/papers/iran_071514.pdf">decision-making simulation</a> done with the <a href="http://www.public-consultation.org/">Program on Public Consultation</a> showed that a clear majority of American respondents, including six out of ten Republicans, preferred continued efforts to negotiate a compromise deal that limits Iran’s enrichment, increases transparency, and provides some sanctions relief to the alternative option of ending negotiations and trying to get other countries to impose more sanctions on Iran. </p>
<p>In July 2014 we conducted a <a href="http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/2014/iranian_attitudes_on_nuclear_negotations__final__091614.pdf">joint opinion poll</a> with the University of Tehran Center for Public Opinion Research, where CISSM associate Ebrahim Mohseni is a senior analyst.</p>
<p>This survey also found broad public support among Iranians for potential elements of a deal that are consistent with the principles of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).</p>
<p>At the same time, the poll revealed why previous sanctions never persuaded Iran’s leaders to stop enriching uranium, and why threatening additional sanctions is unlikely to get more Iranian concessions.</p>
<p>A near-unanimous majority (94%) of Iranians say that it is essential for Iran to make peaceful use of nuclear energy. Large majorities would oppose dismantling half of Iran’s centrifuge capability (70%) or accepting limits on nuclear research (75%). We found no significant difference depending on political preferences. In fact, those respondents who were more highly educated were more negative towards measures that would treat Iran differently from other NPT members that have promised not to develop nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>Threatening to impose new sanctions now, or in a few months if Iran has not acquiesced to these maximalist demands, weakens the United States’ negotiating leverage by stoking Iranian doubts that the President could deliver promised sanctions relief. </p>
<p>Before Republicans won control of the Senate, three-quarters of Iranian respondents already expected that the United States would not lift nuclear-related sanctions even if Iran accepted all US nuclear demands. </p>
<p>Significantly, the small percentage of Iranians who expressed confidence that the United States would reciprocate Iranian cooperation was more willing to accept additional limits and transparency measures. This suggests that providing credible reassurance about sanctions relief could help persuade a majority of Iranians to accept limits on centrifuge numbers and enriched uranium stockpiles for the duration of a comprehensive agreement. </p>
<p>The United States’ closest allies in negotiations with Iran have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-irans-nuclear-programs-give-diplomacy-a-chance/2015/01/21/0cdb4dcc-a185-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html">asked Congress</a> not to pass new sanctions legislation. An increasing number of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/iran-senate-democrats-barack-obama-114467.html">Democrats </a>in Congress now say that it is better to wait and see what type of agreement can be reached with Iran in the next few months. </p>
<p>Some former Republican national security officials, like <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/defense/230263-national-security-heavyweights-oppose-new-iran-sanctions">Brent Scowcroft</a>, have urged Congress to give diplomacy a chance, but it seems that House Speaker John Boehner is not listening. </p>
<p>In a move that directly challenges the President, he has invited Israel’s prime minister to address Congress specifically on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear program. </p>
<p>It is worth noting that Benjamin Netanyahu has been more hawkish than his own intelligence agency Mossad, which <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions">warned</a> a bipartisan Congressional delegation visiting Israel last week against new sanctions legislation. </p>
<p>The choice for Republican leaders now is whether or not they really want to sabotage the negotiations, against the wishes of the American public and key allies. Doing so would reinforce Iranian suspicions that they are – once again – exploiting international concerns about alleged efforts to build weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for military intervention and regime change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy Gallagher receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation</span></em></p>In his State of the Union address, the President’s core message was that the US has emerged strong from the twin crises caused by the 2001 terrorist attacks and the 2008 global recession. And the challenge…Nancy Gallagher, Director at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/363532015-01-21T17:34:58Z2015-01-21T17:34:58ZThe State of the Union 2015 – theater, traditions, politics<p><em>Editor’s note: “The state of the union is good,” and the attitude of President Barack Obama in his annual speech to Congress was upbeat. Good economic news and no more election campaigns were the backdrop to the president’s “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/state-of-the-union-obama-ambitious-agenda-to-help-middle-class.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=homepage">ambitious agenda</a>” and “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true">assertive”</a> call to action. Here scholars from around the US give their reactions to the rhetoric, the theater and the longer term impact of this set piece in American politics.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>SOTU has few traditions to break: it’s the content that counts</h2>
<p>*<em>J Michael Hogan, Pennsylvania State University
*</em></p>
<p>Even before he spoke, the pundits accused Barack Obama of “killing” the State of the Union (SOTU) address by previewing its content in speeches, videos and social media. The SOTU is no longer the “big reveal,” they complained, which presumably diminished both its audience and the tradition itself. </p>
<p>Hogwash! Although rooted in the Constitution, the SOTU has never been that tradition-bound. </p>
<p>Delivered as a written report for much of our history, Wilson changed it into a major speech to Congress; Coolidge made it a radio address; Truman delivered it on TV; and LBJ moved it to prime time. And George W. Bush gets the credit (or blame) for first streaming it over the Internet. </p>
<p>Whatever the medium, the message is what matters. Scholars still point to Ronald Reagan’s 1982 SOTU as one that transformed the genre by invoking the personal stories of invited guests to illustrate his themes. They also still talk about SOTU addresses with big ideas, like the <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp">Monroe Doctrine</a> in 1823, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s <a href="http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fourfreedoms">Four Freedoms</a> or Lyndon Johnson’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=lbj%27s+great+society&sort=relevancy&date=all&date_from=&date_to=&type=all">Great Society</a>. </p>
<p>Let’s hope that the pundits will now provide at least some analysis of Obama’s ideas instead of obsessing over how the speech was delivered and its implications for the next presidential election. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Rallying the party with ‘middle class economics’</h2>
<p><strong>Tom Cronin, Colorado College</strong></p>
<p>President Obama gave an optimistic talk about how America has recovered from the major recession and proposed a populist “Middle Class Economics” policy agenda that might help working and middle class America enjoy more of the fruits of this recovery. </p>
<p>Most Americans probably either didn’t listen to his talk or turned it off mid-way through. And research shows that few of these types of talks have more than a minor impact on public opinion or what Congress is inclined to do.</p>
<p>Still, it is an opportunity for any president to help shape the agenda. Americans expect presidents to celebrate the nation and talk proudly about recent accomplishments and possible future achievements. Obama,like most recent presidents, did this. </p>
<p>The president is a polished speaker and has a splendid ability to portray shared aspirations. What he was especially able to do in the talk, even if momentarily, was to make people forget that Democrats just suffered one of their worst elections defeats in generations. </p>
<p>Obama’s strongest sections were talking about the economy and what might be done to help community college students, low wage earners and helping on issues such as child care and paid sick leave. He cleverly, or perhaps deceptively, avoided talking about hiking capital gains taxes and similar revenue-generating policies needed to pay for these programs.</p>
<p>The President seemed to be claiming too much credit for the recovery and similarly conveyed more progress in Afghanistan and Iraq and in the war against terrorism than is justified.</p>
<p>Overall, however, he rallied his party, set out some worthy aspirations and established some progressive markers that will require members of Congress to at least consider and debate them. </p>
<p>He was using the bully pulpit as best he could, but no one expects major breakthroughs on most of his agenda, save perhaps on trade and cybersecurity issues.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Muted trumpet, quiet hands: a visual and aural analysis</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Cornfield, George Washington University</strong></p>
<p>Television and video focus our attention on facial expressions. Since the contents and contexts of the SOTU have been heavily discussed (both before and after its delivery) by partisans, journalists and academics, I decided to write about what the faces said to us viewers during the speech and to listen carefully to the president’s tone of voice.</p>
<p>Obama began in a key of confidence and concluded in a pleading higher register that reminded me of James Stewart as Jefferson Smith in the early, relatively composed stage of his fictional filibuster in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He did not soar, as he is famous for, but the uplift echoed those orations past. </p>
<p>Obama struck me as a valedictorian: proud of his GPA (two wins, no losses, as he reminded the Republicans), non-strategic in his agenda and outreach and wishful for the same “higher politics” he advocated eleven years ago in his “One America” speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, which he referenced.</p>
<p>The reactions of the assembled were in large part impassive and subdued. There were very few standing ovations and they were very brief in duration. </p>
<p>Speaker Boehner, visible throughout, mostly pursed his lips; oddly, I did not see Senate Majority Leader McConnell. The greatest show of emotion came from Alan Gross, the freed Cuban prisoner, who flashed his broken smile and mouthed thanks. House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan was glimpsed three times, wearing a grudging half-smile. Democratic stalwart Maxine Waters relished a swipe at the GOP’s focus on the Keystone pipeline.</p>
<p>The Republican majority, while stony, did not turn its back on the president in the manner of New York City police, not even when Obama defended the object of the officers’ scorn, Mayor de Blasio. The Democrats cheered, especially Elizabeth Warren, but not overly so.</p>
<p>Emotions, especially anger, can energize political participation. At the set piece theater that is the SOTU, we saw and heard very little emotion. Perhaps in the context of recent terrorism and the ultimatums that dominated the last Congress, that is a good thing. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Four reasons why this is Obama’s best SOTU ever</h2>
<p><strong>Matthew Hale, Seton Hall University</strong> </p>
<p>President Obama sounded, acted and seemed to really enjoy being a Democrat in his State of the Union Speech, no small feat for a president facing a hostile congress filled with Republican faces. This was, I think, his best State of the Union speech ever for four reasons. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>First, the President took credit for his successes in the economy. He hasn’t had as much good economic news in past years but this year he did and he wasn’t afraid to talk about it. </p></li>
<li><p>Second, he wasn’t afraid to throw a punch. He took long overdue smacks at Vladimir Putin and one at snarky republicans laughing at the fact he has no more elections. </p></li>
<li><p>Third, he made promoting the middle class a cohesive theme and not just a checklist of programs. </p></li>
<li><p>Fourth and finally, the President didn’t forget that he has some serious rhetorical gifts. He referenced his 2004 Democratic convention speech and used its soaring optimism as a concluding theme to this one. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The President needed to show he was still important and still in the game. He more than accomplished those goals. </p>
<hr>
<h2>It’s all about 2016</h2>
<p><strong>John Geer, Vanderbilt University</strong></p>
<p>The discussion about the 2016 presidential election is in full swing. </p>
<p>There are a lot of unknowns as we approach this contest. One thing we do know is that Barack Obama will not be on the ballot. He reminded us of that fact in his State of the Union speech. </p>
<p>Even so, he will play a critical role in the upcoming battle for the White House. The SOTU highlights the role he can and will play. </p>
<p>By touting the recent gains in the economy, he provides the Democrats the argument for retaining the White House: unemployment is falling, the deficit is shrinking and economic growth is robust. </p>
<p>At the same time, he is forcing the Republicans into an unappealing box. </p>
<p>They can no longer claim the economy is stagnant, as Mitt Romney did in 2012. Instead, Republicans must shift focus to income disparities; namely that the middle class has not been part of the economic recovery. </p>
<p>This is not an easy argument for the Republicans to make given their own history of tax policies that have favored the wealthiest Americans. Obama knows that and surely relished that aspect of the speech as he pushed the GOP into unfriendly territory. </p>
<p>If the economy continues to do well for the next 22 months, the Republican nominee will likely find the 2016 presidential election an uphill climb: Barack Obama will be a key reason for it. </p>
<hr>
<h2>A theater of whimsy</h2>
<p><strong>Daniel Franklin, Georgia State University</strong></p>
<p>The State of the Union address has become part of the theater of American politics but does anyone watch? </p>
<p>Democrats pushed hard to increase their viewership in 2015 by urging supporters to watch the speech on their smart phones and tablets. Maybe the strategy worked. According to the latest count there were over <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/21/obama-sotu-twitter-facebook/22100811/">two and a half million tweets </a>related to the speech. Although, it should also be said that, according to<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/about-38-million-people-watch-obamas-state-of-the-union/2012/01/25/gIQAYN3ORQ_blog.html"> Nielsen</a>, television viewing of the SOTU was at an all time low of 38 million. </p>
<p>As to the speech itself, President Obama engaged in what best can be described as political whimsy as raising taxes on the rich and much of the rest of his program has as much chance of passing in the next Congress as a snowball’s chance in … oh well, you know. I presume that fans of term limits will be ecstatic about watching a lame duck president adopt a strategy of make a wish policy list.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36353/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Hale is a registered Democrat. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel P. Franklin, J Michael Hogan, John G Geer, Michael Cornfield, and Tom Cronin do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Editor’s note: “The state of the union is good,” and the attitude of President Barack Obama in his annual speech to Congress was upbeat. Good economic news and no more election campaigns were the backdrop…Matthew Hale, Associate Professor and MPA Program Chair, Department of Political Science and Public Affairs , Seton Hall UniversityDaniel P. Franklin, Associate Professor, Political Science and Author of Pitiful Giants: Presidents in their Final Terms, Georgia State UniversityJ Michael Hogan, Liberal Arts Research Professor Director, Center for Democratic Deliberation Dept. of Communication Arts and Sciences, Penn StateJohn G Geer, Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Professor of Public Policy and Education Co-Director, Vanderbilt Poll, Vanderbilt UniversityMichael Cornfield, Associate Professor of Political Management; Research Director, Global Center for Political Engagement , George Washington UniversityTom Cronin, McHugh Professor of American Institutions and Leadership, Colorado CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345742014-12-04T10:44:20Z2014-12-04T10:44:20ZPrague’s velvet: wearing off 25 years later<p>The United States had just gone through a bruising election, but in Congress Democratic and Republican leaders gathered to unveil <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/havels-bust-gets-place-among-greats-in-us-congress/2527328.html">the bust of Vaclav Havel</a>, the playwright and first post-Communist Czech president and only the fourth non-American to be installed in this hallowed space. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi praised Havel as a champion of freedom and human rights who used truth to defeat his totalitarian opponents.</p>
<p>Meanwhile in Prague, the city where Havel staged the Velvet Revolution twenty-five years ago, the streets were filled with <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30086495">demonstrators</a> who thundered at Milos Zeman, the current president: “Resign! Resign!” and waved red cards, the kind used in soccer to eject a player who committed an egregious foul. <a href="http://www.praguepost.com/czech-news/42945-zeman-not-oblivious-to-drop-in-popularity">Opinion polls </a>show that the demonstrators represent two thirds of their fellow citizens who find Zeman to be a failure on the international scene and a divisive force at home. </p>
<p>How did it happen that the Czech Republic’s presidency declined from the universally respected Havel to the present low? For an answer we have to look at today’s Russia and the crisis in Ukraine.</p>
<h2>The new Prague-Moscow axis</h2>
<p>When Putin annexed Crimea and sent weapons and military personnel into eastern Ukraine, the United States and the European Union responded with sanctions. The shooting down of the Malaysian airliner <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17">MH17</a> hardened the Western response and caused some to speculate about a new cold war. </p>
<p>Inexplicably, President Zeman called on his EU and NATO partners to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the 1954 decree that transferred the region to Ukraine was “stupid.” He went on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17">Russian television</a> and denounced the sanctions as counterproductive. As far as the fighting in eastern Ukraine was concerned, Zeman argued, the West had no right to interfere since it was a civil war. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66089/original/image-20141202-20591-90aqac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good friends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Putin_17_April_2002-2.jpg">www.kremlin.ru</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what about the weapons and troops dispatched by Putin, he was asked by then Swedish Foreign Minister <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TKY5RFvM2U">Carl Bildt</a> . None of that was true, he replied. He believed Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who stated that not a single Russian soldier had entered Ukraine.</p>
<p>Zeman’s apparent willingness to believe Moscow is difficult to comprehend: anyone familiar with Czech history in the 1930s cannot fail to see the parallels between Putin’s takeover of Crimea and the Nazi Anschluß of Austria in 1938. Hitler argued that it was only an administrative measure that corrected a historical fluke, and since all involved spoke German, it was a “family affair” that was of no concern to outsiders. Sound familiar? </p>
<p>Equally strong similarities can be seen between today’s eastern Ukraine and the 1938 Czechoslovak-German crisis in the Sudetenland. Regarding the latter, Hitler insisted that the Czechs “terrorized” the German-speaking Sudetens living in Czechoslovakia and he needed to protect them by seizing the territory.</p>
<h2>Controversial conference</h2>
<p>Then President Zeman took a further step that created a gap between the Czech Republic and its EU and NATO partners. In September he attended a conference organized by Vladimir Yakunin, a billionaire who heads the Russian Railways and is also widely believed to have been a KGB operative. Yakunin heads a movement called National Glory of Russia that aims to protect the country from the corrosive Western culture. This does not, by the way, prevent Yakunin and his family from owning a house in London worth millions of dollars. As one cyberwag put it: he hates everything Western, except money. </p>
<p>Zeman used this questionable forum to demand an end to Western sanctions and to assert that the Ukrainian crisis was merely “a flu.”</p>
<p>When he encountered criticism at home and abroad for such pro-Kremlin statements, Zeman was nonplussed. He dismissed Havel’s accent on human rights in foreign affairs as naïve and declared during an official visit to China that he came to learn how to “stabilize society.” As if <em>en passant</em> Zeman added that Taiwan and Tibet were inalienable parts of China. Havel, by contrast, was on friendly terms with the Dalai Lama and a champion of Free Tibet.</p>
<h2>Expletives on the radio and dissing American beer</h2>
<p>Apparently invigorated by further negative comments, Zeman stated in a live interview on <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/11207812/Czech-president-shocks-nations-in-expletive-filled-interview.html">Czech Radio</a> filled with profanities that the imprisoned members of the anti-Putin Pussy Riot group were “whores” who richly deserved their sojourns to the Gulag. Regarding Russian oligarch and Putin opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Zeman opined that if he disapproved of something Putin had done, it was that he had failed to dispatch all the oligarchs to prison. </p>
<p>For his latest performance at the end of November, Zeman chose Kazakhstan, where he promoted Czech beer by dismissing its American competitor as “<a href="http://rt.com/news/208459-zeman-beer-czech-filth/">dirty water.</a>” He then expressed his “unalterable view” that Ukraine should be “neutralized and Finlandized” under the tutelage of Russia, and never admitted into NATO.</p>
<p>Before he became president, Zeman - an economist by training who joined the Social Democratic Party after 1989, became prime minister in 1998 but then left politics for 12 years – held mainstream foreign policy views. What has happened, and why so suddenly? Why does he now have to be reminded by his own foreign minister that all decisions regarding the future of Ukraine belong to its citizens?</p>
<p>As happens often when confronted with mysteries, some have resorted to conspiracy theories. But the principle of <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html">Occam’s Razor</a> teaches that the simplest explanations tend to be correct. Here is mine. </p>
<p>When he compares himself to Vaclav Havel, Milos Zeman sees his own smallness. This propels him toward attention-seeking pronouncements and other forms of political exhibitionism. </p>
<p>It seems incredible that the unity of the West, and the legacy of the Velvet Revolution, should be jeopardized by a man struggling with his own insignificance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34574/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Igor Lukes has received several Fulbright and IREX grants. He is the Honorary Consul General of the Czech Republic in Boston. . </span></em></p>The United States had just gone through a bruising election, but in Congress Democratic and Republican leaders gathered to unveil the bust of Vaclav Havel, the playwright and first post-Communist Czech…Igor Lukes, University Professor, Professor of International Relations and History, The Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies , Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/327872014-11-05T16:28:47Z2014-11-05T16:28:47ZHow the 2014 midterms are going to affect politics in 2015 and 2016<p>Midterm elections in American politics are akin to a reset button and on November 4, 2014 the American people pushed that reset button in a big way.</p>
<p>The Founders of the American Constitution set up an electoral cycle whereby presidents would be elected every four years, all House members would be elected every two years, and one-third of the US Senate would be elected every two years. </p>
<p>The midterm elections are an opportunity for voters to register their approval or disapproval with the president and his political party’s agenda, as well as the congressional response to that agenda. As such, the midterm elections can result in a change in majority party control in the House, the Senate, or both chambers. </p>
<p>In 2010, we saw the House of Representatives go from Democratic Party control to Republican Party (GOP) control largely due to dissatisfaction with the economy and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). </p>
<p>Yesterday, we saw the other shoe drop for the party of the president – the Democrats – as the Republicans won enough seats to become the majority party in the Senate, and increased their existing majority in the House of Representatives to achieve control both houses of Congress. </p>
<p>With a shift in party control, the Republicans will choose which bills can come to the floor of the Senate for debate and passage, which presidential nominations will be considered for a vote, and there will be a complete rotation of committee and subcommittee chairmanships. In short, in 2015, the US Congress will be under unified party control facing an opposite party president.</p>
<h2>This has happened before…</h2>
<p>There is precedent for the political situation that is about to unfold. Going into the 1986 midterm elections, the Republican President Ronald Reagan had been working with a Democratic controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate. However, in that midterm election, the Democrats won eight seats and Congress went under unified Democratic control.</p>
<p>The Democrats started their new session in 1987 by passing a number of bills that Reagan promised to veto, including bills to protect the environment and invests in roads and highways. The Democrats managed to override several of those vetoes and from then on, the Congress and the president worked together on trade legislation, funding for healthcare and AIDS, and limited welfare reform. </p>
<p>Will such bipartisan cross-branch cooperation be possible 28 years later, in a far more polarized and divided world? </p>
<p>Maybe – maybe not. Here’s why. </p>
<p>If it was just up the establishment Republicans in the Senate, they would seek common ground with the president in the areas of trade, taxes, and infrastructure because the business community is a key constituency of theirs and it wants to see congressional action in these areas. They will, at the same time, also push for a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which Republican candidates in this midterm election promised they would do. This is likely to pass both houses but face a presidential veto which they will not be able to override since it requires two-thirds of each chamber. </p>
<p>Bear in mind that in just two short years America has congressional and presidential elections. The GOP will have more incumbent Republican senators up for reelection than the Democrats. If they wish to hold on to their newly won majority, they will have to show voters that they can be a productive force, not just obstructionist. </p>
<h2>Whither the Tea Party?</h2>
<p>However, in American lawmaking, both chambers have to pass the same version of a bill, and there is a group of radical GOP members in the House of Representatives who affiliate with the Tea Party movement, that have no desire to cooperate with President Obama in any way, nor do they see the need for promoting international trade or refurbishing American roadways. Because the Republican Party in the House has established an informal rule - known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule">Hastert Rule</a> - that a majority of the party has to agree on legislation before it can be brought to the House floor, if the Tea Party members object, a bill cannot pass the House. </p>
<p>To get the House and the Senate on the same legislative page – even under unified GOP control – will take all the persuasive powers of both Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and neither one of them is known to be a particularly charming or charismatic leader. But they do have a trump card: their influence with wealthy campaign contributors and GOP aligned interest groups who this year proved that they will work very hard to defeat Tea Party affiliated candidates. </p>
<p>The “establishment” wing of the GOP managed to defeat several popular Tea Party challengers to Senate Republican incumbents in the primaries in 2014. This electoral success sends a strong signal to those Tea Party members of Congress that in the next election cycle, they could very well face nomination challenges funded by the establishment if they do not cooperate. </p>
<h2>Competing priorities in 2016: White House vs. Congress</h2>
<p>On top of pressure to retain control of the Congress in 2016, there is the looming presidential election and the chance to recapture the White House. </p>
<p>There is a long list of candidates gearing up to run for the Republican Party nomination, including prominent members of Congress such as House member Paul Ryan (R-WI), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Each of these men has to establish a reputation for leadership and that might require opposing everything and refusing to work with President Obama at all. Remember, President Obama crafted part of his campaign message around the failed policies of President George W. Bush. There is no doubt that whoever wins the Republican Party nomination to run for president will have to adopt a similar strategy. It is much harder to do that if you cooperate with him. </p>
<p>The 2015 policy environment will depend almost entirely on which motive prevails among the Republican Party – hold the House and the Senate in 2016 or rally the more conservative elements of the party base voters to win control of the White House. </p>
<p>It is likely that Congress will only be productive if Republican Party leaders can persuade a majority of their members of the House and Senate that limited cooperation with the president in the areas of trade, taxes, and infrastructure legislation will succeed in doing both at once.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Schiller received a National Science Foundation Grant (American government funded organization) to study the election of U.S. Senators in state legislatures from 2005-2008. The grant is expired. </span></em></p>Midterm elections in American politics are akin to a reset button and on November 4, 2014 the American people pushed that reset button in a big way. The Founders of the American Constitution set up an…Wendy Schiller, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/233912014-02-21T06:01:13Z2014-02-21T06:01:13ZRepublican Party is divided against itself … What else is new?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42090/original/wrybny2h-1392916214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can it stand?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birthplace_of_the_US_Republican_Party_2.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When US Vice President Joe Biden <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/14/biden-there-isnt-a-republican-party/">complained recently</a> that “There isn’t a Republican Party,” nobody thought to reply, “Well, it takes one to know one.” Not so long ago, a Republican might well have said the same thing about the Democrats. </p>
<p>From the chaos of the 1960s to Bill Clinton’s election as president in 1992, the Democrats were often as divided and fractious as today’s Republicans seem to be. In fact, Democratic faction-fighting has a long and storied history. In the 1920s, humorist Will Rogers famously said that he was not a member of an organised political party. “I’m a Democrat,” he explained.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s no question that today’s Republicans appear to be anything but united. As Biden rightly noted, the party couldn’t even speak with one voice in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech. There was no single, unifying Republican response, as is traditionally the case for the loyal opposition. “What was there, three or four?” Biden asked. There were, in fact, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/4-republicans-will-now-be-responding-to-obama-s-state-of-the-union-address">four</a> formal responses. But there were dozens more from individual members of Congress, who saw no reason to coordinate their message for the party’s sake.</p>
<p>Still, the state of the Republican Party’s divisions may not be as dire as many commentators think. If anything, the party is more ideologically unified today than it was during the glory years of the 1970s and 80s, when the party dominated the White House.</p>
<p>Back then, Republicans were bitterly divided between liberals and conservatives. Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of New York from 1959-1973, personified the party’s liberal wing. Ronald Reagan emerged in the 1960s as the voice of a new conservative movement determined to rid the party of Rockefeller-style politics. </p>
<p>Today, Reagan’s mission is complete. The party has been <a href="http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/chris-shays-on-a-vanishing-breed-the-classic-new-england-republican/">purged of old-fashioned liberals</a>, most of whom represented northeastern states that now are devoid of Republican representation in Congress. Far more than in the 1970s, the party is now uniformly – if not rigidly – conservative. By contrast, the <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25843">1976 Republican Party platform</a> chose not to take a position on abortion, noting that some party members firmly believed in abortion rights. Those party members long ago lost influence in the party’s deliberations.</p>
<p>The real division in the Republican Party today is not between conservatives and liberals, or even between conservatives and moderates. The division is between professionals and amateurs.</p>
<h2>Beyond good and evil</h2>
<p>Professional politicians understand the importance of compromise, and even appreciate the basic humanity of their partisan antagonists. They accept the notion that politics often is the art of the possible. Amateurs, on the other hand, are full of passionate intensity, in Yeats’ words. They are single-minded and uncompromising. They will shut down the government rather than yield to foes they invariably see not as colleagues but as traitors, evil-doers, and perhaps, given all that passionate intensity, representatives of Satan himself.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42089/original/jcdy4664-1392916031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hellraising senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/9419013041/sizes/l/">Gage Skidmore</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a healthy democracy, no professional politician should conceive of government and politics in such starkly moralistic terms. If nothing else, such a position rules out, by definition, compromise. How can one compromise with evil? But that is the position in which the Republican Party’s amateurs have placed themselves. They will not compromise even on prosaic issues like the debt ceiling, and they treat as heretics those who do – like their fellow Republican and House Speaker <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/14/tea-party-group-lashes-out-at-tax-and-spend-liberal-john-boehner/">John Boehner</a>.</p>
<p>These Republican amateurs are crowded into the Tea Party caucus, a place where compromise goes to die. The idols of this crowd are people like Texas Senator <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/26/ted-cruz-democrats-caused-the-shutdown/">Ted Cruz</a> and Kentucky Senator <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/rand-paul-muses-about-dueling-his-accusers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0">Rand Paul</a>, both of whom curl their lips with contempt when speaking of professional politicians in either party. </p>
<p>Ironically, when Biden made his observation about the multiplicity of Republican parties, some Republican professionals may have nodded their heads in agreement. Order and discipline are the hallmarks of a professional political organisation. The disorder in the party’s ranks must gall them. </p>
<p>But amid all the sound and fury within the Republican Party, it’s important to realise that on big issues, and even some small issues, the party has achieved some ideologicial consensus. A thousand flowers are not blooming in today’s Republican Party, or at least not in the party’s congressional caucus. </p>
<p>The question for the party’s future is therefore not over policy or dogma. The question is whether it will remain in the hands of professionals who understand the art of the deal, or if it will be overrun by amateurs who see compromise – the very heart of the democratic process – as intrinsically evil.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Golway does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When US Vice President Joe Biden complained recently that “There isn’t a Republican Party,” nobody thought to reply, “Well, it takes one to know one.” Not so long ago, a Republican might well have said…Terry Golway, Director, Center for History, Politics & Policy, Kean UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/188012013-10-01T15:05:19Z2013-10-01T15:05:19ZBoehner risks his reputation in Obamacare shutdown<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32258/original/h2qdwpfs-1380637041.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yolo.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Republican Speaker John Boehner faced a choice between two unappetising gambles on Monday night. One option was to cut a deal with Democrats to continue federal government spending at present levels, and in so doing trigger a revolt from the radical wing of his own party that might end his speakership. The other was to dig in, precipitate a partial shut-down of the government, and risk the public assigning the blame to congressional Republicans.</p>
<p>Caught between grim and grimmer as far as political prospects were concerned, he has gone for option two, and the government shutdown has begun. </p>
<p>While the sudden reality of the derailing of the US government may come as a surprise to some, for regular viewers this represents the feared collision at the end of a long series of games of chicken between the president Barack Obama (and the Democrat-controlled senate) on one side and the Republican House on the other. Since the Republican victory in the 2010 congressional elections, which gave them control of the House, power and influence has steadily accrued in the hands of the radical wing of the party, elected from safe Republican constituencies on the back of a wave of anti-tax, anti-government fundamentalism among the base of primary voters.</p>
<p>Fervent in their ideological antipathy to the president, averse in principle to compromise, and with the only threat to their re-election coming from still-more extreme forces to their right through a primary challenge, the resulting caucus of conservative hardliners has turned the budget process into a series of crises and ultimatums. </p>
<p>Over the past three years there have been several moments of last-minute bullet-dodging, when Congress has threatened to shut down the government or – worse still – refuse to raise the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stakes-are-high-in-the-upcoming-vote-on-the-debt-ceiling-11575">debt ceiling</a> and thus precipitate default on US debts already acquired, with these outcomes only being avoided through compromise at the death. </p>
<p>In this, the radicals have been aided by Speaker Boehner’s efforts to abide by the so-called <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-hastert-rule-according-to-dennis-hastert/article/2536140">Hastert rule</a>, whereby legislation should only be allowed to come up for a vote when it can be passed with a majority consisting entirely of Republican votes.</p>
<h2>A battle for the Republican soul</h2>
<p>The present impasse over spending could be resolved swiftly if Democrats and moderate Republicans were permitted to combine their vote through a continuing resolution extending current spending. But to do so would enrage the radicals in and outside Congress and thus put Boehner’s leadership at risk. In that sense, what is playing out at present represents not a stand-off between the two parties, but rather a battle within the Republican Party between those who consider compromise with the other side an inherent evil and those who regard it as the inevitable price of keeping government functional.</p>
<p>The specific ground on which the radicals have chosen to make their stand this time is Obamacare, the large healthcare reform voted through by Democratic majorities during Obama’s first term and due to take effect this year. Unless its implementation is suspended for a year (by which time Republicans hope to have won the votes in the senate for its full repeal), the House refuses to approve any further government spending. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32261/original/phj75wcc-1380637657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Come at me, bro.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pete Souza</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since it is the president’s signature legislative achievement, and since acquiescence would in effect mean granting the House the right to dictate terms to the rest of the government through the power of budgetary blackmail, there is near zero possibility of presidential or senatorial assent to these demands. Indeed, since Republicans’ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/us/politics/house-gop-leaders-list-conditions-for-raising-debt-ceiling.html?src=me">list of demands</a> for raising the debt limit in effect amount to implementing the manifesto of Mitt Romney, there is good reason for other branches of government to see the current row as one part of an outlandish power-grab on the part of an extreme group within one half of the legislature.</p>
<h2>Closed for business</h2>
<p>What does the “shutdown” of the federal government mean in the immediate term? In practice, it doesn’t mean we should expect planes to start colliding in the skies or unmanned border posts to be overrun. “Essential” workers can legally be retained in service with the hope of back pay when the crisis is resolved. But as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to-work-during-government-shutdown.html?_r=0">this chart</a> illustrates it does mean hundreds of thousands of government staff parked at home indefinitely without pay, many government offices shuttered, and millions of dollars of government spending and contracting cancelled or suspended. </p>
<p>This is bad for many reasons, but two have particular weight. While some activities may be “non-essential” in the very short term, many of these government activities provide services which over time the public will increasingly miss. The military may remain in place and welfare administration may not have stopped dead, but as time goes on the closure of permit offices, national parks and parts of the justice system, to name but a few examples, will begin to be felt by more and more of the population as they try and fail to access them. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32259/original/f8hyjr6r-1380637425.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Abe would not approve.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, government spending is a vital component in the overall US economy, and has been even more so in recent years as the financial crisis and recession brought the private sector to its knees. While there have been tentative signs of recovery, the sudden withdrawal of huge tranches of government spending from circulation – both from the pockets of direct employees and from the vast number of individuals and businesses who rely on government contracts for their living – will deliver a major shock to the economy. The precise consequences are unknowable, but the short and definite version of what consequences it implies is: nothing good.</p>
<h2>The great gamble</h2>
<p>A key component in conventional thinking about the prospect of government shutdown until this moment has been the memory that last time it occurred. In 1995, congressional Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich were blamed by the public for unreasonable behaviour, providing Bill Clinton with the opportunity to rebuild his own agenda and popularity. </p>
<p>The assumption has been that Republicans today would wish to avoid a shutdown for fear of a repeat of the same outcome. As it transpires, they have proven prepared to take their chances. That may be because they have reached an informed view that this time they can pass the blame to the president more successfully. Or it may be because radicals Republicans are sufficiently ideologically adamant, and have sufficiently little to lose personally by taking a hard-line posture, that they simply don’t care about the consequences and have drawn a line on principle. </p>
<p>Boehner, at least, and his Republican leadership counterpart in the senate Mitch McConnell, will be painfully aware of the risk they are taking with the party’s image. If the public shows signs of being as unforgiving in its assessment of Republican actions as some have foretold, then he will be forced to revisit his bleak choice between the radicals whose support he relies upon, and the centre-ground of public opinion his party needs if it aspires to future electoral victories at the national level.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Quinn receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>Republican Speaker John Boehner faced a choice between two unappetising gambles on Monday night. One option was to cut a deal with Democrats to continue federal government spending at present levels, and…Adam Quinn, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.