tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/rand-paul-9481/articlesRand Paul – The Conversation2017-07-26T01:00:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815952017-07-26T01:00:25Z2017-07-26T01:00:25ZSenate GOP opens health care debate. Now what?<p><em>On July 25, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell narrowly managed to keep a Republican effort to reform health care alive. We asked our experts to consider the importance of this procedural vote and what happens next.</em></p>
<p><strong>Jeffrey Lazarus, Georgia State University</strong></p>
<h2>Which bill will it be?</h2>
<p>Senate Republicans have voted to start debate on a health care bill. The “motion to proceed” – which marks the start of debate on bills in the Senate – reached a majority on the strength of “yes” votes from senators who previously voted “no,” including Rand Paul, Dean Heller and Shelley Moore Capito; <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/john-mccain-votes/index.html">John McCain’s quick return</a> to Washington after a brain cancer diagnosis; and <a href="https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm">a rare tie-breaking vote</a> from Vice President Pence. </p>
<p>While this is a major step in the legislative process in the Senate, it’s important to remember that today’s vote is procedural, not substantive. No bill has passed. All that has happened is that the Senate will begin formal debate. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/mitch-mcconnell-the-presidents-man-in-the-senate-81377">Majority Leader Mitch McConnell</a> depended on a couple of factors to help get the motion passed. First, members are more likely to support their parties on <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520072206">procedural votes</a> than votes directly attached to whether a bill should pass. Second, this particular procedural vote has almost no substance; nobody knows what the Senate bill will look like, so it’s unclear what exactly the Senate just agreed to debate. Since the health care bill is massively unpopular, this lack of substance probably helped get marginal senators on board. </p>
<p>So what bills could McConnell now bring up?</p>
<p>One is <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/republican-sens-mike-lee-jerry-moran-announce-opposition-48691742">the bill</a> the Senate was working on before it all but died when four GOP senators – Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Susan Collins and Rand Paul – announced they would vote against it. </p>
<p>A second is a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/19/heres-what-health-care-looks-like-if-republicans-new-obamacare-repeal-plan-succeeds/?utm_term=.518abd09b6dd">“repeal and delay” option</a>, which would repeal Obamacare in full, but on a two-year delay. This would give Congress more time to come to an agreement on what a replacement should look like. </p>
<p>Unless a number of senators reverse their public opposition, neither of these two bills is likely to pass. </p>
<p>The third option is a <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343611-senate-gop-floats-scaled-down-healthcare-bill">“skinny” bill</a> with a small number of relatively popular provisions. One possibility would repeal Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, and the medical device tax, but leave the rest of Obamacare intact. This has a better chance of passing. It’s also primarily intended to simply get the Senate to conference committee, where senators and House members could continue negotiations on what the final bill should look like. </p>
<p><em>Jeff Lazarus is the author of “Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Win Reelection,” coming in 2018 from University of Michigan Press.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>David McLennan, Meredith College</strong></p>
<h2>Who will lead the Senate health care debate?</h2>
<p>Senate Republicans voted by the narrowest of margins – 51-50 – to begin debate to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Several days ago even this procedural victory appeared unlikely.</p>
<p>McConnell scheduled today’s vote even though <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/senate-gop-health-care-bill-has-dismal-approval-rating-poll.html">several polls</a> show the bill’s low public approval. With the help of President Donald Trump, McConnell pressured just enough senators to vote in favor of the motion – including Dean Heller and Rand Paul – who previously said they had concerns with Republican reform ideas.</p>
<p>Although McConnell and Trump successfully used their positions to pressure critics such as <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ron-johnson-wisconsin-obamacare-repeal-mcconnell-medicaid">Ron Johnson of Wisconsin</a>, one of the most vocal critics of the process used in the Senate, it is unlikely the tactics used to squeeze 50 Republican senators to vote to allow debate will translate into a Republican bill that repeals and replaces Obamacare.</p>
<p>The likely leaders in the next phase of the Republican attempts to reform health care will come from different parts of the caucus. Their arguments in the upcoming debates will be forceful and not amenable to the pressures of McConnell or Trump.</p>
<p>Susan Collins of Maine, one of two Republicans who voted against the motion to debate, leads the group of moderate Republicans and has been clearest about the need for <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/republican-susan-collins-health-care-bill-complete-overhaul/index.html">starting over on reform</a>. </p>
<p>McCain made an emotional return to the Senate floor to cast his vote to proceed with debate, even while <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/343703-mccain-urges-senators-to-work-together-on-healthcare-in-fiery-speech">criticizing the Republicans’ bill</a> and the process used by McConnell. McCain represents the mainstream Republicans who want to follow a more traditional legislative process.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ApnbUupbgEQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">McCain: “We’re getting nothing done.”</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rand Paul of Kentucky, speaking for the libertarian wing, argues that nothing short of <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-crony-capitalism-isnt-a-right-so-why-does-senate-healthcare-bill-give-insurance-companies-the-right-to-a-bailout/article/2628572">a complete repeal of the ACA</a> with no reform that offers government subsidies is the best solution.</p>
<p>The Republican caucus remains divided about the way forward on health care reform. However, with a weakened majority leader and an unpopular president, it will be interesting to see who emerges as a leader in the next few weeks.</p>
<p><em>David McLennan is the author of <a href="http://www.meredith.edu/images/uploads/women-nc-politics.pdf">“Women in North Carolina Politics</a>.”</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Rachel Paine Caufield, Drake University</strong></p>
<h2>What about the president’s agenda?</h2>
<p>It was a dramatic day on Capitol Hill. Unable to craft a “repeal and replace” bill with support from the Republican caucus, the Senate leadership has opted for a truly exceptional open amendment process, meaning senators will squabble over details in public.</p>
<p>So what does this vote portend for Trump’s policy agenda on health care and other issues?</p>
<p>That the House and Senate started with health care reform says something about their policy goals. They could have highlighted an effort to work with Democrats and started with <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/02/28/trump-congress-address-infrastructure-investment/">Trump’s proposal</a> to spend US$1 trillion to update and improve America’s infrastructure. They could have brought the Republican caucus together and begun work on tax reform, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/04/26/president-trump-proposed-massive-tax-cut-heres-what-you-need-know">a priority for Trump</a>. There may be good reasons to start with health care, including a procedural desire to use the <a href="https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/reconciliation_process.htm">reconciliation</a> process and the need to <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/04/11/health-care-reform-first-will-pave-way-for-tax-reform-trump-exclusive.html">rely on savings from health care reform to justify widespread tax cuts</a>. But the issue has demonstrated the deep ideological, geographic and policy <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-lost-a-few-seats-divisions-run-deep-2016-11">differences</a> within the party. Putting those divisions front and center at this early stage engenders an image of chaos and could exacerbate later efforts to find common ground on other issues.</p>
<p>Like all presidents, Trump spent his campaign laying out a series of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/">policy commitments</a>. Unlike most presidents who have had experience negotiating the fine points of policymaking, Trump is relying on congressional leaders to fill in the blanks and make his policy commitments real. <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Ewhowell/papers/Divided.pdf">Unified government generally yields more “landmark” legislation</a>, but the current health care debate suggests that Trump will have a hard time leading his party forward on immigration reform, infrastructure spending, financial deregulation and tax cuts.</p>
<p>Trump seems ambivalent about the details of this policy debate. While campaign rhetoric to “repeal and replace” may be popular among Republican voters, actual reform is fraught with risks to Republican lawmakers, including the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/16/by-a-2-to-1-margin-americans-prefer-obamacare-to-republican-replacements/?utm_term=.40d069b87a5b">unpopularity</a> of Republican alternatives. Republican legislators see a mandate to move forward decisively on this issue, but the president has not proven to be a consistent leader in this effort. To the extent that the president’s agenda will be achieved, it will be because Republican leaders in Congress share his goals and are willing to hash out the details among their members.</p>
<p><em>Rachel Paine Caufield is the author of <a href="https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9781467115834">“The Iowa Caucus</a>.”</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81595/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>Mitch McConnell gets a win, and the Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare will be debated in the Senate.Jeffrey Lazarus, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityDavid McLennan, Professor of Political Science, Meredith CollegeRachel Paine Caufield, Associate Professor, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/810132017-07-14T02:41:37Z2017-07-14T02:41:37ZWhy health savings accounts are a bust for the poor but a boost for the privileged<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178181/original/file-20170713-9618-8l6p7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber, accompanied by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, left, as activists, many with the clergy, are taken into custody by U.S. Capitol Police on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 13, 2017, after protesting against the Republican health care bill.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/Search?query=health+care+bill&ss=10&st=kw&entitysearch=&toItem=15&orderBy=Newest&searchMediaType=excludecollections">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/us/politics/senate-republican-health-care-bill.html">new version of the Republican health care bill</a> July 13, he relied on a favorite Republican device to solve the nation’s health care woes – Health Savings Accounts.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_HSASurvey_Draft_2.14.17.pdf">Health Savings Accounts</a> (HSAs) were established by the same legislation that created the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit in 2003. <a href="https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_HSASurvey_Draft_2.14.17.pdf">HSAs</a> allow individuals to make tax-deductible contributions, withdraw money tax-free to pay for qualified medical expenses and avoid taxes on the money invested in the account.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_HSASurvey_Draft_2.14.17.pdf">Enrollment in HSAs</a> has skyrocketed to nearly 20 million people, but there’s a catch. Very few, if any, of those 20 million people are poor. The HSAs allow individuals to use tax-protected funds for medical purposes for years to come. Some have even called them the <a href="https://www.wageworks.com/blog/2016/july/07/health-savings-accounts-the-new-401k#sthash.eA4uob07.dpbs">“new 401(k)‘s</a>.”</p>
<p>While these savings accounts can be good for people of a certain income level, I have concerns that they will overlook the needs of the poor, who not only stand to gain very little from the tax advantages but who also are unlikely to have thousands of dollars to contribute to such plans.</p>
<h2>Tax savings and a dose of financial responsibility</h2>
<p>Currently, individuals are allowed to make <a href="https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_HSASurvey_Draft_2.14.17.pdf">annual contributions</a> of US$3,400, while families are allowed to contribute up to $6,750. Unlike so-called health Flexible Spending Accounts, or FSAs, left-over assets in the account carry over from year to year. In 2015, the average balance was just over $1,800.</p>
<p>Individuals are able to establish HSAs only when they obtain coverage through so-called High-Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs), which are currently defined as plans with a deductible of at least $1,300 for single people, or at least $2,600 for family coverage. The maximum out-of-pocket cost for individuals and families are $6,450 and $12,900, respectively.</p>
<p>This means that individuals with these plans are responsible for a significant amount of costs before their insurance benefits kick in. There are no data that show how many people of lower income could afford to fund these plans.</p>
<p>What we do know is that there are about <a href="https://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=3397">20-22 million policyholders</a> with <a href="https://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=3397">$28 billion in assets</a>. </p>
<p>In larger employers, <a href="https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/private/gl-2017-health-national-survey-infographic-series-mercer.pdf">53 percent of employers offer HSAs, and about a quarter of employees are covered</a>. About <a href="http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees-wave-3/">half of individuals</a> obtaining insurance in the individual market do so via a high-deductible plan. This number is expected to <a href="http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/10/07/trouble-ahead-for-high-deductible-health-plans/">continue to grow in the future</a>.</p>
<h2>Why are conservatives enamored of HSAs?</h2>
<p>When it comes to conservative ideology, HSA checks off a number of boxes. </p>
<p>For one, they are supposed to empower the individual to take charge of their own health care decisions. With <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1813785?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">more “skin in the game,” individuals will be incentivized to make better, more prudent choices</a> when it comes to their health care. This should not only reduce premiums for individuals and families, but equally important, rein in the growth of U.S. healthcare expenditures.</p>
<p>Lower premiums, in turn, would then allow more Americans to obtain insurance coverage. They would also ease the tremendous burden on American companies seeking to provide health insurance to their employees.</p>
<p>HSAs also reduce the tax burden of Americans, albeit mostly for the wealthier part of society. Moreover, the funds in HSAs will provide investment capital to America’s economy and lead to further economic growth.</p>
<h2>Disadvantages of HSAs?</h2>
<p>A handful of studies have been able to provide some insights into potential benefits and problems of HSAs and HDHPs. Most of the studies confirm the general findings of the famous <a href="https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R3055.pdf">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a>: Higher deductibles lead to a reduction in the quantity of medical care consumed. The experiment also showed that, on average, this reduction was not detrimental to individuals’ health status.</p>
<p>However, there was one significant exception: Low-income individuals with chronic conditions saw a significant drop in health status.</p>
<p>More recent studies have shown that HDHPs and HSAs lead to spending about <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910568/">5-7 percent less</a> on medical care per enrollee. Most of these reductions come from <a href="http://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2013/2013-1-vol19-n12/medication-utilization-and-adherence-in-a-health-savings-accounteligible-plan/P-1">reducing the amount of care consumed</a> – <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21632?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw">not from shopping for cheaper providers</a>. There is also evidence that individuals <a href="http://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_152.pdf">delay care</a>, <a href="http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/life-sciences-health-care/us-lchs-dig-deep-hidden-costs-112414.pdf">do not comply with doctors’ treatment plans</a> and <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/12/2641.full.pdf+html">are unaware of free preventive services</a>.</p>
<p>None of these findings is surprising.</p>
<p>We know that <a href="http://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-americans-contend-with-unexpected-expenses">many Americans do not have enough savings to account for an emergency</a>, medical or otherwise. The wealthiest Americans disproportionately benefit from these insurance arrangements. Indeed, <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-house-gop-health-savings-account-proposals-would-mostly-help-wealthy-not-uninsured">families making in excess of $100,000 make up 70 percent of HSA contributions</a>. </p>
<p>CNN Money called HSAs “<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/05/pf/hsa-health-savings-account/index.html">the best tax-free investment account you’ll be able to find</a>.”</p>
<p>We know that American health care consumers are notoriously <a href="http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/assessing-americans-familiarity-with-health-insurance-terms-and-concepts/">bad at understanding the U.S. insurance and health care system</a>. They also have <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082313-115826">problems understanding provider quality</a>. Shopping around, already challenging in the health care field – in case of an emergency or when there is only a limited number of providers – is hardly possible in these conditions.</p>
<h2>The recent Senate bill</h2>
<p>The most recent revision of the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act makes four significant changes to HSAs and HDHPs.</p>
<p>First, it almost doubles the amount individuals are allowed to contribute, to $6,550 and $13,100 for individuals and families, respectively.</p>
<p>Second, it further increases these limits for Americans 55 and older in order to allow them to prepare for retirement.</p>
<p>Third, it also reduces the penalty individuals incur for withdrawing funds from their HSAs for nonqualified expenditures.</p>
<p>Fourth, and this is a significant departure from federal policy since the 1940s, it allows individuals and families to use money in HSAs to pay for insurance premiums. Previously, only individuals with employer-provided insurance were subject to preferential tax treatment.</p>
<h2>The rich can get richer?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-senate-republican-healthcare-plan-leaves-taxes-on-the-wealthy-in-place-lets-people-buy-less-expensive-plans/article/2628509">Under criticism from advocates and even members of his own party</a>, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) most recently released Senate repeal-and-replace effort maintained many of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes. However, well-to-do Americans may have obtained an even better replacement in the form of Health Savings Accounts. We should also not forget that these taxes could be subject to repeal during the upcoming efforts at tax reform or the budget process.</p>
<p>We know very little about the long-term effects of high-deductible plans. However, <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/12/2641.full.pdf+html">scholarly findings</a> on delayed care, reduced preventive care and avoidance of medical care are cause for concern with potentially significant detrimental effects for the American health care system and Americans.</p>
<p>We also know that these arrangements further <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/gao-study-confirms-health-savings-accounts-primarily-benefit-high-income-individuals">segregate the risk pool and divide Americans based on their income and health status</a>. Richer and healthier individuals will seek out these plans to shelter their assets. Poorer and sicker Americans will not be able to reap these benefits.</p>
<p>More than 50 years ago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow prominently <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/%7Ejay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf">pointed out</a> that the health care field is filled with striking market failures. While HSAs and HDHP may sound like a good solution, they are unlikely, I would argue, to be viable and equitable solutions to what ails the American health care system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon F. Haeder 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>The latest Senate health care bill is still a hodgepodge of efforts to repeal Obamacare, critics say. One of their concerns is the focus on HSAs.Simon F. Haeder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747952017-03-22T01:09:15Z2017-03-22T01:09:15ZRussia, an alleged coup and Montenegro’s bid for NATO membership<p>Testifying before a congressional committee, FBI Director James Comey has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html">confirmed</a> that his agency is investigating links between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia.</p>
<p>While this investigation continues, Americans should be reminded of the signs of Russian <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30366947">interference in democratic processes</a> outside the U.S. – specifically, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/19/heres-how-russias-trying-to-sway-opinion-in-serbia-and-the-balkans/?utm_term=.6250702a5112">in the Balkans</a>.</p>
<h2>Small but strategic</h2>
<p>Recently, British Prime Minister Theresa May <a href="https://euobserver.com/foreign/137194">expressed concern</a> over Moscow’s apparent involvement in an attempted coup in my home country. </p>
<p>From 2010 to 2015, I was the ambassador to NATO from Montenegro, a young democracy in southeast Europe that is part of the former Yugoslavia. Montenegro was targeted by an apparent coup attempt during its last parliamentary election on Oct. 16, 2016. While <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/russian-state-bodies-attempted-a-coup-in-montenegro-says-prosecutor">Russia has denied</a> involvement, details of the plot shared by a Serbian man arrested at the scene point to what The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/europe/finger-pointed-at-russians-in-alleged-coup-plot-in-montenegro.html">called</a> “Russian efforts to sow mayhem.”</p>
<p>Montenegro’s <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/montenegro-attempted-coup-accusation/">chief special prosecutor</a> has alleged the involvement of two Russian Military Intelligence Service (GRU) agents, Vladimir Popov and Eduard Shirokov. The GRU is the same organization <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html">sanctioned by the Obama administration</a> for hacking the Democratic National Committee offices. Shirolov, who has also gone by the name Shishmakov, was posted as the assistant military attache at the Russian Embassy in Poland until 2014 – when Poland <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/montenegro-coup-suspect-was-russian-spy-in-poland--02-21-2017">threw him out of the country for spying</a>. </p>
<p>As some of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/reconstruction-full-incredible-story-behind-russias-deadly-plot/">the plotters later confessed</a>, their goal was to overthrow Montenegro’s government, kill then-Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic and put into power political groups that oppose Montenegro’s NATO membership. Russia is <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34981973">on the record as opposing</a> that membership bid and promised “retaliatory actions.”</p>
<p>Despite Russian opposition, joining NATO is one of Montenegro’s major foreign policy goals. The overwhelming majority of NATO members, 26 states, have already ratified the country’s membership and the process seemed on track for completion at the next NATO summit in May of 2017. </p>
<p>However, the addition of new members to the alliance requires unanimous support, and Spain and the U.S. still haven’t passed ratification. </p>
<p>In the U.S., the proposal has been stalled in the Senate for several months. The vote recently sparked <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/16/rand_paul_john_mccain_unhinged_and_past_his_prime.html">a nasty exchange</a> between senators John McCain and Rand Paul when McCain attempted to call a vote on the issue, but Paul – who, along with <a href="http://www.voanews.com/a/us-senate-committee-advances-montenegro-nato-bid-to-vote/3673118.html">Mike Lee</a> may be the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/rand-paul-senate-backlash-obamacare-russia-236272">only senators</a> opposed to the ratification – used Senate rules to delay it. </p>
<p>Some officials in the U.S. and Europe see no relevance in getting Montenegro, a small state with a small military, into NATO. Indeed, the U.S. focus on Asia has left the region <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ce3bd714-058a-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9">vulnerable and unguarded</a> since the Clinton administration. </p>
<p>But, in my strong opinion, Moscow sees Montenegro in very different terms. Russia has a vivid interest in the Balkans and views Montenegro as more relevant than one may conclude from its small size. </p>
<h2>No place to moor</h2>
<p>Why is it so important? Consider the following anecdote:</p>
<p>In September 2013, <a href="http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2014/item1/article2/">the Russian Federation made</a> what then-Russian ambassador in Montenegro, Andrey Nesterenko, described as “a request” to “discuss the terms of allowing Russian warships temporary moorage at the ports of Bar and Kotor for refueling, maintenance and other necessities.” Moscow’s request was prompted by the war in Syria and the uncertain future of the Russian naval facility in the Syrian port city of Tartus. Montenegro rejected the request in December of that year.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161377/original/image-20170317-6109-122i2wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Russian Defense Ministry Press Service/via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The importance of such facilities in the Mediterranean was demonstrated in October 2016 when the Russian carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and its battle group <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/nato-fears-russian-battle-group-may-be-used-for-indiscriminate-t/">were denied refueling in European ports</a> on their way to support the Russian military effort in Syria. </p>
<p>That’s why Moscow looks at Montenegro’s decision to join NATO with displeasure. If Montenegro joins NATO, it would give the alliance control of every northern port in the Mediterranean. </p>
<p>Moscow’s stress has grown as Montenegro became closer to NATO membership. In my view, the coup plot was the culmination of more than 18 months of synchronized actions, which included an aggressive media campaign. To influence the public opinion of Serbs in Montenegro, Russia has opened a number of Serbian-language media outlets – including <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/19/heres-how-russias-trying-to-sway-opinion-in-serbia-and-the-balkans/?utm_term=.524deefd282e">Sputnik and Russia Today</a>. This media campaign, coupled with open political and financial support for pro-Russian political parties in Montenegro, seems to me an obvious attempt to reverse a pro-Western trajectory of the state and stop it from joining NATO.</p>
<h2>Rare loss</h2>
<p>Montenegro is one of only a few contests that Moscow has lately lost in its zero-sum style competition with the West. Despite efforts and money, Moscow has made no measurable progress in slowing the pro-Western direction of the country. For example, Montenegro and Albania have <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/montenegro-gets-revenge-for-sanctions-agains-russia-08-14-2015">joined the EU</a> <a href="http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/montenegro-joins-eu-arms-embargos-10-08-2015#sthash.HKtVf96M.dpuf">sanctions</a> on Russia as punishment for annexing Crimea – a decision that made Moscow furious. </p>
<p>Russia’s involvement in Montenegro is a part of Russia’s broader strategy to roll back NATO and EU enlargement while regaining influence in countries that aspire to join those organizations. Russia has proved that it has the capacity to threaten, influence and subvert NATO’s “open door” policy. Such has been the case <a href="http://www.rferl.org/a/georgia-hopes-of-nato-membership-recede/27699636.html">since 2008</a> when Russian President Putin successfully derailed Georgia’s bid for membership – a process that has never gotten back on track. </p>
<p>For now, Russia seems to have lost a possibility of having a strategically significant outlet on the Adriatic Sea. But, I believe, any further American retreat – in the form of a deal with Russia or a withdraw into isolationism – may have lasting adverse implications for this region, European security and America’s enduring interests in Europe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vesko Garcevic 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>Russian interference in the U.S. election is part of a bigger pattern, according to a former ambassador from Montenegro to NATO.Vesko Garcevic, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/523742015-12-16T06:19:38Z2015-12-16T06:19:38ZPass or fail? Profs grade GOP foreign policy debate<p><em>Two weeks after a terrorist attack in California, the GOP candidates for president met to discuss foreign policy. We asked two national security experts to grade the ideas they expressed.</em></p>
<h2>Henry Kissinger, how I’m missing you</h2>
<p><strong>Bear F Braumoeller, Ohio State University</strong></p>
<p>In the past, foreign policy debates have generally favored Republicans: the party of Nixon and Reagan has long been <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/26/democrats-have-more-positive-image-but-gop-runs-even-or-ahead-on-key-issues/">perceived as more competent</a> when it comes to national security issues. In the context of their party’s history, it is especially surprising that the candidates fared so poorly when it came to articulating a competent policy for dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS). </p>
<p>For example, a competent terrorism policy should at minimum avoid overt violations of international law. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz’s <a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/carpet-or-area-bombing/">advocacy of carpet bombing</a> territories held by the Islamic State, Ben Carson’s refusal to rule out the <a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/legitimate-military-targets/">bombing innocent children</a> and Donald Trump’s suggestion that we should target the families of terrorists <a href="https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/676965874335662080">fall into precisely that category</a>.</p>
<p>Once past that low bar, a competent terrorism policy should demonstrate an understanding of the causes of terrorism and the likely effects of antiterror policies, even if those causes and effects are debatable. By my count, most candidates failed this test most of the time. For instance, Cruz, Carson, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all articulated the logical fallacy that Professor Jack Snyder calls the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Empire-Domestic-Politics-International/dp/0801497647/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450240632&sr=8-1&keywords=myths+of+empire">“paper tiger” myth</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the main opponent is seen as an implacable foe posing an immense security threat, yet at the same time as too weak, inert, or irresolute to combat aggressive countermeasures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, Trump’s proposal to fight ISIS by shutting down parts of the internet called into question his understanding of the internet. On the other hand, Bush laid out a detailed plan to combat ISIS and pointed out that alienating Muslims would dramatically undercut it, while Trump gave a sober assessment of the costs of regime change and Rand Paul connected weak states to the spread of extremism.</p>
<p>Admittedly, debates are difficult settings within which to demonstrate the clear understanding of cause and effect necessary to produce an effective foreign policy. Even so, such demonstrations were few and far between last night.</p>
<h2>The Emperor’s new clothes – bluster in the GOP</h2>
<p><strong>David Alpher, George Mason University</strong>
The candidates in the last GOP debate of 2015 left us with an image of great toughness and resolve. Unfortunately, what they resolve to do except be tough was never addressed. </p>
<p>Instead, the candidates declared that we will win by winning, defeat enemies by defeating them, and secure ourselves by keeping ourselves secure. </p>
<p>The candidates offered no plans to do anything about the origin of the problems they identified, and no understanding of the problems themselves.</p>
<p>Carly Fiorina suggested technical methods like better algorithms and the quicker embrace of new technology to catch disaffected populations through better surveillance. But she never addressed the complex social problems behind disaffected populations. </p>
<p>Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz spoke to containing illegal immigration with walls. But any policy suggestions for immigration reform were lost in a crossfire of recriminations about being soft on the undocumented. </p>
<p>Cruz suggested that all terrorists are Muslims even if not all Muslims are terrorists, but neither the other candidates nor the moderators called that statement out for its obvious inaccuracy by pointing out recent examples of domestic, Christian terrorism like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-charleston-43821">attack on a Charleston church by the white supremacist Dylann Roof</a>. </p>
<p>In the process, the candidates are describing tactics – not solutions – which contain but don’t solve social problems. Historically, that has been an effective way of actually making social problems worse, as the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ferguson-mizzou-missouri-racial-tension_564736e2e4b08cda3488f34d">flare of violence around race relations in the US should demonstrate</a>. </p>
<p>Of all of the candidates on stage, the only one who expressed the idea “we need to be smart and think things through” was Jeb Bush. </p>
<p>Ben Carson emphasized the need to be on a war footing, and both he and Ted Cruz refused repeatedly to rule out carpet bombing even if civilian casualties couldn’t be avoided. John Kasich (along with Lindsey Graham in the early debate) stated the need for troops on the ground to destroy ISIS. However, neither offered a new strategy to bring peace to Syria. </p>
<p>The most common statement in this debate was that we can’t keep ourselves safe with the same plans we’ve been using. President Obama was repeatedly criticized for having nothing but policies we’ve already tried and watched fail, but the candidates then suggested the very same policies – kill them, deny them territory, shut down financial and technical capabilities and end the war in Syria. In fact, Obama’s plan is more comprehensive – although relying on force, he does in fact acknowledge the causes behind terrorism and loss of trust in the US and the need to deal with those. A critical difference. </p>
<p>Although Bush stands out for his call to thought, he also failed to provide anything but toughness and force. He made telling statements like “we can’t disassociate ourselves from Muslims” or they won’t stand with us. At first blush that sounds inclusive, but it doesn’t include Muslims as part of “us.” Nevertheless, the need to think was a promising statement, and a very real distinction of his performance during this debate. </p>
<p>The candidates repeatedly expressed that the most important quality of leaders is the ability to act. Bush’s counterpoint of saying “think first, be smart about this,” is important to keep in mind with regard to the state of our democracy overall, and deserved attention it didn’t get. It should be the Republican statement in the primary election – but as things stand, that looks unlikely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52374/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>Who is most fit to serve as America’s commander-in-chief? Our scholars watched the latest GOP debate to decide.David Alpher, Adjunct Professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason UniversityBear F. Braumoeller, Associate Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/512352015-12-09T11:09:00Z2015-12-09T11:09:00ZShould voters care about candidates’ religious views?<p>Religion is grabbing some of the biggest headlines in the current US presidential campaign.</p>
<p>We’ve heard a lot about what <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims.html?_r=0">candidates like Donald Trump</a> think about other people’s religious beliefs. </p>
<p>But what about the candidates’ own beliefs and religious affiliations – and how those will affect their policy positions?</p>
<p>As a student of American religious life, my research leads me to suggest that there are rarely straight lines from religious doctrines to policy positions for any of us. </p>
<p>As a voter, the better question to ask is whether religious conversations are part of the candidate’s everyday world – and, if so, to whom are they talking?</p>
<h2>An imperfect mirror</h2>
<p>I look at this field of presidential candidates and see a mirror of the diverse kinds of religious conversations in which Americans engage.</p>
<p>With one exception.</p>
<p>We certainly might notice that there are no Muslim candidates, but like Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Christian traditions, they constitute a <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf">very small minority</a>
of the population. More striking are the missing nonaffiliates. <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/11/201.11.03_RLS_II_full_report.pdf">Fully 23% of Americans</a> tell researchers that they have no religious affiliation, but <a href="https://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf">a lingering distrust of atheists</a> seems to make “none of the above” an unacceptable option for politicians. That’s true even though most unaffiliated people aren’t atheists.</p>
<p>What we do see in this field, however, are several candidates whose active participation is quite minimal. </p>
<h2>Fiorina, Trump, Paul, Christie and Pataki</h2>
<p>Like 15% of Americans, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump and Rand Paul are affiliated with “mainline” Protestant denominations – just like most US presidents have been. </p>
<p>Fiorina is Episcopal, Trump Presbyterian, and Paul was raised Episcopal but now attends a Presbyterian church. <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/what.do.we.know.about.the.faith.of.the.2016.presidential.candidates.so.far/51847.htm">All reports</a> indicate that Trump and Fiorina seldom attend church services. Paul’s wife is active in their congregation, but there is little mention of his participation. </p>
<p>Chris Christie and George Pataki were raised Catholic. Christie has lots of Catholic connections, but can’t always <a href="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/08/chris_christies_religion_7_facts_about_his_catholi.html">attend Mass</a>. Pataki’s current connections to the church seem to be quite <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/gop-pre-debate-rituals-republican-cleveland/">tenuous</a>. </p>
<p>Like roughly four in 10 of their fellow Catholics and mainline Protestants, these are people who claim their own personal faith but may go to church only on holidays and not much more.</p>
<p>My research on <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sacred-stories-spiritual-tribes-9780199917365?cc=us&lang=en&">religion in everyday life</a> suggests that for these candidates, their churches and their beliefs are likely not the overarching framework for their lives. They may have some ability to talk about religion in contexts where that vocabulary is the coin of the realm, but it is not their own native tongue. Their religion is unlikely to bear much on how they think about the world. When people are not actively involved in communities and conversations where spiritual matters are the focus, they rarely bring that focus to other parts of their lives.</p>
<h2>Sanders</h2>
<p>We might also put Bernie Sanders in this camp, but the Jewish experience is a bit different. </p>
<p>Sanders is rather typical of American Jews whose identification is more ethnic than religious. As the <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report-for-web.pdf">Pew Forum report</a> on American Jews shows, identity comes less from participation in synagogue life than from family and community ties. They also report that a majority of American Jews say that working for social justice is essential to being a Jew, and that is something Sanders can bring to bear as he <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-vows-fight-anti-islam-sentiment-2016-democratic-presidential-candidate-2161525">responds to issues</a>.</p>
<p>These six candidates stand in contrast to the remaining eight, who more regularly engage with others in spiritual conversations – with their church community, families and friends. </p>
<h2>Clinton and O'Malley</h2>
<p>It is critical to note that being religiously engaged is not just for conservatives.</p>
<p>Protestants like Hillary Clinton and Catholics like Martin O’Malley participate actively in communities where the social justice message of Christianity shapes how they see the world. That’s a relatively easy-to-miss portion of the American religious landscape, but there are political liberals in virtually every religious tradition.</p>
<p>Approximately one in five mainline Protestants and Catholics and <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf">13% of evangelicals</a> identify as politically liberal.</p>
<h2>Huckabee, Graham, Cruz, Carson</h2>
<p>The roughly 13% of Americans who are both religiously and <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/11/201.11.03_RLS_II_full_report.pdf">politically conservative</a> tend to get more attention in the press.</p>
<p>These are represented in the presidential field by Southern Baptists Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, and Seventh Day Adventist Ben Carson. Adventists are similar to their evangelical compatriots but were a new group that emerged in the mid-19th century. There is <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/april/southern-baptist-pastors-wont-hear-ben-carson-calvinists.html">sometimes tension</a> with other evangelicals over their habit of worshiping on Saturday. Southern Baptists are also evangelical, but a more intense conservatism took over in the 1980s. Today <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Battles-Religious-Conflict-Convention/dp/0813515572">the denomination</a> is linked more strongly to opposition to abortion and gay marriage and is slowly pushing its historic progressive wing – think Jimmy Carter – out the door.</p>
<h2>Kasich and Santorum</h2>
<p>This group is joined in their conservative religious and political commitments by Protestants like John Kasich and Catholic Rick Santorum.</p>
<p>Kasich belongs to a church affiliated with the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), a new dissident conservative wing of Episcopalianism.</p>
<p>Santorum’s influences include the Opus Dei movement. The intense everyday spiritual commitments expected in Opus Dei have often made it <a href="http://americamagazine.org/opus-dei">controversial</a>, and its reputation for secrecy has made it the subject of intrigue. </p>
<p>Both the ACNA and Opus Dei are influential religious organizations that go beyond a simple denominational affiliation. Across our history, Americans have created and joined such new religious organizations to pursue particular religious visions and goals, and that means that denominational affiliation alone is never the whole story. </p>
<h2>Rubio and Bush</h2>
<p>And then there are Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, who embody the growing tendency of Americans to put together their own patchwork of affiliations. </p>
<p>Bush left his Episcopal upbringing to join his wife’s Catholic faith. </p>
<p>Rubio started out Catholic, detoured into the Latter Day Saints, joined a Southern Baptist church and then returned to Catholicism. A generation ago, few people would have expected to see a practicing Catholic who also still attends a Southern Baptist church, but the political affinities of conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants have created new conversations where doctrinal disagreements <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7416.html">take a back seat</a> to social concerns.</p>
<h2>No neat lines</h2>
<p>Understanding the relationship between a candidate’s religion and his or her politics is neither irrelevant nor straightforward. </p>
<p>Two key questions need to be asked. How deeply enmeshed is this candidate in a set of spiritually focused conversations and relationships? If the answer is “not very,” the candidate represents the large nominally affiliated portion of the American electorate, and we can expect his or her invocation of religion to be highly situational. </p>
<p>If the answer is “very,” then the next question is: which circles of conversation?</p>
<p>Those circles no longer neatly follow denominational lines, so just knowing a given politician’s affiliation isn’t the whole answer. </p>
<p>There are broad ranges of political opinion in nearly every denomination. In many cases, there are spin-off special-purpose organizations that embody those political differences and blur the boundaries of traditional denominational labels. The books people read and the preachers they listen to on YouTube may be as important as the church they attend. People who have listened to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kjSK-PcU9o">Joel Osteen</a> or read <a href="http://purposedriven.com/books/pdlbook/#purpose">The Purpose Driven Life</a> may share a religious view of the world that also shapes their politics.</p>
<p>But even when a religious person is deeply engaged in conversations that shape a religious view of the world, those views never tell the whole story of a life. Everyday life, even for religiously committed presidential candidates, always entails the mundane realities of making a living, staying well, dealing with difficult people and getting from point A to point B. </p>
<p>Religious conversations may be important conversations, but they are never the only ones.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy T. Ammerman received funding for her research on religion in everyday life from the John Templeton Foundation. </span></em></p>Donald Trump is Protestant, Bernie Sanders is Jewish and Ted Cruz is a Southern Baptist. But do such religious affiliations mean anything?Nancy T Ammerman, Professor of Sociology of Religion, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/477362015-09-18T10:03:29Z2015-09-18T10:03:29ZDo you need a book to sit in the Oval Office?<p>Donald Trump says President Obama should have read his book, The Art of the Deal, because it would have kept him from making a bad nuclear agreement with Iran. Jeb Bush says that Trump should have read his book, Immigration Wars. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/05/arts/ap-us-books-jindal.html?_r=0">Bobby Jindal says</a> all the other candidates should read his book, American Will: The Forgotten Choices That Changed Our Republic, when it comes out in October.</p>
<p>And lest anyone has missed the point, in the Republican candidate debate this week, Dr. Ben Carson said he wanted as president the Secret Service code name “One Nation,” which just so happens to be the title of one of his many books.</p>
<p>It wasn’t always the case that would-be presidents wrote books or talked about them so much. </p>
<p>Today, however, campaign books are as routine as campaign photographs, which incidentally is a common theme for book jacket covers.</p>
<p>But is book authorship a valid credential for making someone resident of the White House? </p>
<p>Our study of presidential writing suggests it is not. </p>
<h2>Good writers aren’t necessarily good presidents</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95276/original/image-20150917-7498-1pf7ny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ulysses Grant - a fine author and president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ulysses_Grant_1870-1880.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Let’s start with Ulysses S Grant. He is one of our least successful presidents in large part because he surrounded himself with scandal-prone appointees. Once out of office he wrote what may be the best presidential book, a two-volume memoir of the Civil War. <a href="http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2008/novemberdecember/feature/who-was-edmund-wilson">Influential</a> critic <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=M79HuG-HhzMC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=Edmund+Wilson+said+it+was+the+%E2%80%9Cmost+remarkable+work+of+its+kind+since+the+Commentaries+of+Julius+Caesar.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=85gvi56l0x&sig=YSvdeTnkWe4iGIfz1XJEAVZGqw8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMIg-m1zIzwxwIVlCmICh3VOwQc#v=onepage&q=Edmund%20Wilson%20said%20it%20was%20the%20">Edmund Wilson said</a> it was the “most remarkable work of its kind since the Commentaries of Julius Caesar.”</p>
<p>Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, neither of whom were reelected, are among the most prolific presidential writers. Hoover wrote some two dozen books on subjects as diverse as fishing and Woodrow Wilson. His <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26697">Principles of Mining</a> was a standard text on the subject. Jimmy Carter, one of our most admired ex-presidents, has <a href="http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/carterbi.phtml">written 29 books</a>, one of the better of which picks up a Hoover theme, fishing.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/schlesinger.html">survey of historians</a>, done by Arthur Schlesinger in 1996, ranks George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as our three best presidents. Not one of them wrote a book. The only one of the three who was a good writer was Lincoln. <a href="http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-01-02-0007">Washington once penned</a> a two-hundred word letter that had only one period, at the end.</p>
<p>The one exception on Schlesinger’s list is Theodore Roosevelt, who he lists as a “near great.” His countenance is on Mount Rushmore and his byline is on 38 books. His <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9104">Naval War of 1812</a> is a classic and is still in print. An avid reader as well, he wrote about books, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34135/34135-h/34135-h.htm">A Book-Lover’s Holidays In The Open</a>.</p>
<h2>Using ghost writers</h2>
<p>The discriminating reader will say, “Ha, but what about books by those in the ‘high average category,’ Eisenhower and Kennedy, or Reagan, to whom the current crop of Republican candidates like to compare themselves.” </p>
<p>True enough, all three have books with their names on the cover. But they were not the principle authors of the words inside. </p>
<p>Eisenhower enlisted literary subordinates to do his writing for him, just as he used military subordinates to peel potatoes and fight in combat. “One of the jobs of a guy like me,” <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=M79HuG-HhzMC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=One+of+the+jobs+of+a+guy+like+me,+was+to+get+%5BIkes+dictation%5D+past+the+report+stage.&source=bl&ots=85gvn55jVw&sig=tszmEnmhDKIEGTqQ7bfLm8VWKGE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAGoVChMIorKAwc7-xwIVBJqACh2ddAR1#v=onepage&q=One%20of%20the%20jobs%20of%20a%20guy%20like%20me%2C%20was%20to%20get%20%5BIkes%20dictation%5D%20past%20the%20report%20stage.&f=false">said Sam Vaughan</a>, the Random House editor who worked with him, “was to get [Ike’s dictation] past the report stage.” </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95277/original/image-20150917-7534-1r901ch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Pulitzer prize winner.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/4101560259">Insomnia cured here</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Kennedy received the Pulitzer Prize for <a href="http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/Profile-in-Courage-Award/About-the-Book.aspx">Profiles in Courage</a>, his book on political leaders with great integrity. Most of the writing was actually done by his speechwriter, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Profiles-in-Courage">Ted Sorensen</a>, and a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/12/us/jules-davids-dies-at-75-helped-kennedy-with-profiles-book.html">Georgetown University history professor Jules Davids</a>. After Ronald Reagan’s <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/An-American-Life/Ronald-Reagan/9781451620733">An American Life</a> appeared, he commented, “I hear it’s a terrific book. One of these days I am going to read it myself.”</p>
<p>The point is that the ability to sit alone for long stretches of time to write a book is no indication of the ability to lead a large, complex nation made up of competing interests.</p>
<p>Woodrow Wilson, a book author who enjoyed solitarily pecking away at his typewriter, was, as historian James McGregor Burns told one of us years ago “stubborn, fixed, inflexible.” Largely as a result of <a href="http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/why-did-united-states-fail-join-league-nations/p30709">his uncompromising attitude</a>, he did not secure Senate approval for the League of Nations. </p>
<p>Franklin Roosevelt, who tried writing books on several occasions but never got beyond a few pages, relished political deal making. During World War II he masterfully marshaled support for a “united nations” organization in which the United States would play a strong role. </p>
<p>One reason former presidents write books or have them written for them is to tell their side of the story after their service is up. Another is to make a little money. </p>
<p>Grant did not write his book to get elected. He was dying of throat cancer and did not receive the White House retirement stipend presidents do today. He had to take care of his family somehow.</p>
<h2>Can a book win votes?</h2>
<p>Writing books in order to get elected is more difficult to explain. </p>
<p>Maybe it is because we live in a media age that budding presidents feel they need to make use of every communications device, from book to Facebook. Maybe it is because the contemporary citizen is so accustomed to celebrity authors that a ghostwritten book is accepted as a sign of intellect.</p>
<p>In any event, most candidates seem to understand intuitively the lessons of history. Spending a lot of time alone writing a book is much less productive than standing in front of a television camera or picking up the phone to ask for campaign contributions. No doubt for these reasons, few of the books by the current crop of candidates were written by them. </p>
<p>You sometimes can find the name of the real author buried in the acknowledgments. John Kasich is particularly generous in this regard. In his book, <a href="http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/john-kasich/stand-for-something/9781594835148/">Stand for Something</a>, he thanks a long list of people for their help. Bernie Sanders’s book, <a href="http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book/paperback/the-speech/9781568586847">The Speech</a>, is not a book at all, but a transcript of his 2010 filibuster of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Nevertheless, his acknowledgments thank his staff and the Senate stenographers.</p>
<p>Book covers inevitably serve as campaign posters. Usually the author’s name is in bigger type than the title, and the titles sound like campaign slogans, to wit,<a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/318203/a-more-perfect-union-by-ben-carson-md-with-candy-carson/"> A More Perfect Union</a> (Ben Carson), <a href="https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/rand-paul-taking-a-stand.html">Taking a Stand </a>(Rand Paul), <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/314726/unintimidated-by-scott-walker/">Unintimidated </a>(Scott Walker), <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/9780062365613/a-time-for-truth">A Time for Truth</a> (Ted Cruz), and <a href="http://www.jameswebb.com/books/a-time-to-fight">A Time to Fight</a> (Jim Webb). </p>
<p>Donald Trump’s 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, has been “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/08/31/donald-trumps-time-to-get-tough-is-out-in-paperback-youll-never-guess-the-new-subtitle/?tid=sm_tw">updated for 2016</a>” and now features his campaign slogan on the cover, “Make America Great Again.”</p>
<p>Books dwell on family stories - “My first book, <a href="http://www.penguin.com/book/tough-choices-by-carly-fiorina/9781591841814">Tough Choices</a>, began with my mother and father. This book will end with them,” writes Carly Fiorina in
<a href="http://www.penguin.com/book/rising-to-the-challenge-by-carly-fiorina/9781591848035">Rising to the Challenge</a>. They extol America’s greatness - “But it’s never smart to bet against the United States,” Hillary Clinton states in <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Hard-Choices/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/9781476751474">Hard Choices</a>. And they appeal to hot button issues their political base considers signs of American failure. In the latter category are Mike Huckabee’s <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/godgunsgritsandgravy/mikehuckabee">God, Guns, Grits and Gravy</a> (“In the world I come from and choose to live in, ‘gun control’ means that you hit the target”) and Marco Rubio’s <a href="http://www.penguin.com/book/american-dreams-by-marco-rubio/9780143109037">American Dreams</a> (“If we raise the minimum wage, companies like Chili’s will be driven to replace workers with machines sooner than planned.”) </p>
<p>Of course, there are some exceptions. </p>
<p>The title of Jeb Bush’s 2013 book and its subject are serious – <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Immigration-Wars/Jeb-Bush/9781476713465">Immigration Wars</a>. It may be a sign that he won’t win, although he is taking literary steps to counter the impression he is a dull policy wonk. To get into print quickly, he is self-publishing a book in October of his emails as governor. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reply-All-Jeb-Bush/dp/1515149048">Reply All</a> also serves as a convenient dig against Hillary Clinton who has been reluctant to release her own emails.</p>
<p>Even less likely to win is Senator Lindsay Graham, who wrote a 126-page e-book with the anodyne title <a href="http://www.lindseygraham.com">My Story</a>. It is free, and only available on his campaign website. Unlike Bobby Jindal, who says <a href="http://www.writerswrite.com/readersread/bobby-jindal-to-publish-american-will-book-in-october-52720151">his October book</a> has nothing to do with his candidacy, Graham said he only wrote his because as a candidate he had to. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Everyone has a story. Not everyone has to tell it, of course, and most people have the good sense not to. But if you’re in my line of work, and the time arrives when you start imagining a big promotion, and you let your imagination get the better of you, you are by custom expected to give a general account of your life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If Graham really thought he was going to win he would not have said that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47736/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Maxwell Hamilton received funding over the years from the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation, among other such philanthropies. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Whitehead 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>Candidates beware! History suggests that book writing presidents are not necessarily the best presidents.John Maxwell Hamilton, Global Scholar at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC and Hopkins P Breazeale Professor, Manship School of Mass Communications, Louisiana State University Amy Whitehead, Masters degree student, Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458042015-08-06T19:45:46Z2015-08-06T19:45:46ZStatistics professors give Fox News a B- on their big polling test<p>The results are in.</p>
<p>Fox News has settled on the 10 Republican candidates who will do battle on the “main stage” during the first televised GOP debate. </p>
<p>As expected, Donald Trump will take center stage as the undisputed leader of the polls, with an average reported by Fox News of 23%. </p>
<p>But while Fox is using polling and statistical analysis to justify their selections, their methods of calculation strike us – two statistics professors from Oklahoma State University – as too fast and loose.</p>
<h2>The answers Fox got</h2>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">Fox News</a>, these candidates will be joining Trump based on their polling averages: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (13%), Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin (11%), retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (7%), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (7%), Senators Ted Cruz of Texas (6%), Rand Paul of Kentucky (5%) and Marco Rubio of Florida (5%), and Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey (3%) and John Kasich of Ohio (3%).</p>
<p>The remaining seven candidates (Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and John Gilmore) will duke it out at the debate undercard to be held earlier that day. </p>
<h2>The Perry question</h2>
<p>The notable candidate missing from the main event is Perry, whose recent tete-a-tete with Trump has received a lot of attention from the media. Perry referred to Trump as “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/23/perry-to-trump-basically-dont-mess-with-texans-who-are-running-for-president/">a cancer on conservatism</a>,” while Trump suggested that Perry should be required to take an IQ test prior to being allowed on the debate stage. </p>
<p>Fox News did not go out of its way to ensure Perry a spot, even though the fireworks that may have resulted could have scored big for the news network.</p>
<p>Had Fox News decided to include Perry, it could have picked a combination of polls that put Perry ahead of Kasich. For instance, the following five give Perry the lead: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/273490309/CBS-News-GOP-presidential-candidates-poll">CBS News</a> (completed on Aug. 2), <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/03/poll-new-high-for-trump-new-low-for-clinton/">Fox News</a> (August 2), <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-surges-new-nbc-news-wsj-poll-n402036">NBC/Wall Street Journal</a> (July 30), <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/">Reuters/IPSOS </a>(July 28) and <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/">Reuters/IPSOS</a> (July 22).</p>
<p>The drawback to using those five polls is that they are not the five most recent, they use different data collection methods and they use different sampled populations. The five Fox actually picked have the advantage of consistency.</p>
<h2>Points for consistency</h2>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">Fox</a>, the five polls utilized were CBS News, Bloomberg, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University and their own Fox News poll. </p>
<p>An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, which did fall within the five most recent, did not meet Fox’s criteria for inclusion because it did not include Kasich, the network <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">reported</a>. </p>
<p>A second important aspect of the inclusion criteria was the restriction against automated phone interviews. All the polls utilized consisted of live interviews, and both landlines and cellphones were included. This aspect reduced <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1034389">the bias inherent</a> in using automated polling and relying solely on landline phone numbers. </p>
<p>A third consistency in the five polls selected was their sampled population. All five polls sampled “registered voters.” Keeping to a single population ensures that the polls can be compared to one another, and that the calculated average is meaningful.</p>
<h2>Points off for averaging errors</h2>
<p>The real concern is the method Fox News used to obtain their averages. </p>
<p>They employed the most basic method imaginable. The rank order was determined by a simple arithmetic average of publicly available results. Averages were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. The sample sizes and margins of error of the five polls were ignored in the calculations. </p>
<p>To see why this is an issue, let us look at an extreme case. In Poll A, 200 registered Republicans are asked their preference. In that sample, 5% prefer Perry and 2% prefer Kasich. In Poll B, 2,500 registered Republicans are asked their preferences. In this poll, 2% prefer Perry and 4% prefer Kasich. Simply averaging the percentages puts Perry on the stage with an average of 3.5% to Kasich’s 3%. </p>
<p>However, between the two polls, only 60 people preferred Perry – 10 from Poll A and 50 from Poll B. A total of 104 preferred Kasich – 4 from Poll A and 100 from Poll B. In this extreme example, Fox’s simple averaging would have put the candidate preferred by 2.2% in the debate and sidelined the candidate preferred by 3.9%.</p>
<p>Weighted averages matter.</p>
<p>Fox didn’t use weighted averages, but they used the concept to justify their result.</p>
<p>The network <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">claimed</a> that “given the over 2,400 interviews contained within the five polls, from a purely statistical perspective it is at least 90% likely that the tenth place Kasich is ahead of the eleventh place Perry.” </p>
<h2>No real harm done</h2>
<p>Had Fox use the more correct weighted averaging method, the only change would have been a change in position for Christie and Kasich.</p>
<p>That change is no big deal. And perhaps Fox wanted to use math that is easier to explain to viewers. </p>
<p>But what would have happened if the decision to use unweighted averages resulted in a different lineup? It could have meant that a candidate regulated to the “kiddie table” actually deserved to eat with the adults.</p>
<p>One thing Fox got right: It showed its work, giving voters the ability to see how the selections were made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45804/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>Fox News is using polling to justify their picks for the GOP debate, but the way they averaged those polls was a little fast and loose.Mark Payton, Head of the Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityOle J. Forsberg, Visiting Assistant Professor of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/454812015-08-04T19:25:41Z2015-08-04T19:25:41ZPolling is more complex than Fox News boss Roger Ailes wants you to know<p>The first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle will be held on August 6, more than 15 months before the election and almost five months before the Iowa caucus. </p>
<p>Because of the large field of official candidates, Fox News will select just 10 to take part in the debate. The remainder of the field will be invited to a debate “kiddie table” that will be held <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/fox-republican-debate-lowers-threshold-120748.html">earlier that day</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://press.foxnews.com/2015/05/fox-news-and-facebook-partner-to-host-first-republican-presidential-primary-debate-of-2016-election/">Fox News</a> has released the following criteria for trimming down the list of official candidates:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Must place in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News leading up to Aug. 4 at 5 p.m. EST. Such polling must be conducted by major, nationally recognized organizations that use standard methodological techniques.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/6arv5v/july-30--2015---j-j--abrams">Jon Stewart’s quip</a> may not be far wrong: “Ah, so basically they’re going to look at the polls and [Fox News boss] Roger Ailes is going to pick whoever he wants.” </p>
<h2>Which five polls?</h2>
<p>Between the day Donald Trump officially entered the race though August 4, 18 national polls were conducted by dedicated polling firms for major national news sources. Polls were also conducted by major universities. </p>
<p>These polls differed on several important aspects: sample size, voting qualification and telephone use. Each of these differences affects which candidate gets the most support. These differences also raise questions of how – or if – they can be averaged meaningfully. This is the reason behind the Marist Institute of Public Opinion’s <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/08/marist-suspends-gop-polling-ahead-of-fox-debate-211675.html">decision to suspend</a> its Republican polling until after the Fox News decision.</p>
<p>“It’s a bad use of public polls,” Lee Miringoff of Marist told Politico.</p>
<h2>Sample size and precision</h2>
<p>The 18 national polls we identified have sample sizes ranging from 300 to 815. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-margin-of-error-explained-16393">As a general rule</a>, larger sample sizes provide estimates that are more precise. At the top end of the range, a sample size of 815 corresponds to a margin of error of approximately plus or minus 3.5%; a sample size of 300, to plus or minus 5.7%. </p>
<p>This precision is important for the candidates vying for one of the 10 debate positions. Of the 710 sampled in <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07302015_U645de.pdf">the July 28 Quinnipiac poll</a>, for example, 3% supported Rick Perry and 6% supported Ben Carson. </p>
<p>This tells us that Carson has more support than Perry in this particular sample. However, it does not follow that Carson has more support among the entire population of Republican primary voters. The margin of error is too large to come to that conclusion. What we can say based on the basis of this poll is that we are 95% confident that Perry’s actual level of support in the entire population is between 0 and 6.5%. Since this interval contains Carson’s estimate, these two candidates are in a statistical tie. </p>
<p>So, the first problem with the method proposed by Fox News is that we can’t say with any certainty which candidates are more popular. </p>
<h2>Voting qualification</h2>
<p>The second issue is one of who will be polled. </p>
<p>If the polling firm is attempting to estimate the candidate support in the general population, then that firm should contact a sample of all US adults. If, however, the firm wants to estimate support within those who will vote in the Republican primaries, then the polling firm should ask only Republicans who will vote in the primaries. </p>
<p>These two populations are very different and will lead to very different results. </p>
<p>In the 18 polls, four different populations of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents were sampled: all adults, registered voters, likely voters and primary voters. </p>
<p>Different polling firms used different populations. For instance, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-donald-trump-leads-gop-field-in-2016-presidential-race/">CBS News uses</a> “primary voters.” <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/03/poll-new-high-for-trump-new-low-for-clinton/">Fox News uses</a> “registered voters.”</p>
<p>The different sampled populations can give a different ordering of candidate preference. Which of these four populations is of most interest to Fox News? Fox News isn’t saying. </p>
<h2>Telephone use and accuracy</h2>
<p>The third issue centers on biases in sampling. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1034389">Research we conducted</a> on polling in the 2012 election uncovered a probable reason pollsters predicted a victory of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.</p>
<p>The pollsters were relying too heavily on responses to landline telephones, creating a bias against cellphone-only households. Cellphone-only households, according to the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr039.pdf">Centers for Disease Control</a>, tend to be younger, poorer and urban. Excluding these groups from polling biases the results away from their preferences. </p>
<p>This is the first election where the majority of polling firms are explicitly contacting cellphone numbers in addition to landlines. However, several polls still fail to contact cellphone users. Skipping these people severely biases the estimates.</p>
<p>The upshot is that those Republican candidates who appeal to the younger crowd are disadvantaged in polls that do not explicitly used cellphone numbers in addition to landline numbers. </p>
<h2>A question of averaging</h2>
<p>One last thing Fox isn’t making public is how they intend to average the five polls.</p>
<p>Will they just average the candidate support predictions? Will they weight the predictions based on the sample sizes? If so, which statistical model will they use?</p>
<p>The choices they make can affect who is on stage for the main event. </p>
<p>Take the example of Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Simply averaging their support estimates puts Rubio ahead of Huckabee. If the estimates are weighted using their sample size, Huckabee is ahead of Rubio. </p>
<p>Since this just swaps the candidates between the #4 and the #5 spots, it does not affect who is in the debate. It does affect, however, what podium a candidate occupies, with those with highest poll numbers literally getting “center stage.” </p>
<p>Of course, these averaging issues can also affect the all-important #10 spot, which is currently a toss-up between John Kasich and Rick Perry.</p>
<h2>The final 10 are…</h2>
<p>The upshot of this insecurity is that Fox News has wide latitude in this first debate. Could Fox News decide the debate lineup based on something other than the polls? Arguably, is Perry more entertaining on the stage than Kasich? Also of note are the multiple interviews that Perry has given Fox News over the course of the past week. </p>
<p>As it currently stands, <a href="http://www.electoralforensics.org/commentary/?p=4747">we propose that the following</a> nine are safely in the debate: Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie. </p>
<p>The #10 spot most likely goes to John Kasich, who holds a slight edge over Rick Perry. </p>
<p>The remaining six major candidates should not wait for the phone call, unless it is from a polling company.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45481/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>Picking 10 top GOP candidates from five national polls isn’t as easy as Fox News wants you to believe. Here are some ways it could – and probably is – going wrong.Mark Payton, Head of the Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityOle J. Forsberg, Visiting Assistant Professor of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/438992015-07-24T17:34:25Z2015-07-24T17:34:25ZCandidates are ignoring race’s crucial role in determining who thrives, struggles<p>Last Saturday, presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were booed and heckled by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/us/protesters-confront-candidates-on-race-at-netroots-nation-conference.html?emc=edit_th_20150719&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=28708558">liberal</a> activists at a town hall discussion at the Netroots Nation annual conference. </p>
<p>Why would attendees at a gathering of left-leaning progressives commandeer the microphone on stage and shout down Democratic White House contenders? Because Sanders and O’Malley, like the rest of the candidates, have built political platforms that largely ignore race.</p>
<p>The activists at the Netroots meeting were angry because Sanders and O’Malley have failed to respond to racial criminal justice issues, largely ignoring recent high-profile cases – such as the death in police custody of <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandra-bland-said-she-was-depressed-attempted-suicide-jail-records-n396886">Sandra Bland</a> – and police misconduct involving blacks. Instead, the candidates have focused on economic reforms. But those platforms ignore race too.</p>
<p>Sanders eventually <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/bernie_sanders_becomes_the_first_candidate_to_speak_out_on_sandra_bland_we_need_real_police_reform/">denounced</a> the circumstances surrounding the Sandra Bland arrest and has called for police reforms, and Hillary Clinton now <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-yes-black-lives-matter">appears</a> to have embraced the Black Lives Matter movement. </p>
<p>Still, none of the White House hopefuls has publicly discussed the role that demographics – particularly race – play in determining who will thrive, and who will struggle, in today’s economy.</p>
<h2>Cookie-cutter platforms</h2>
<p>Sanders, who is a socialist and the most progressive candidate in the presidential race, has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanders-on-americas-grotesquely-unfair-society/">characterized</a> the well-documented wealth and income gaps as “grotesquely” unfair. His proposed solutions, though, are generic and race-neutral ones, like raising the minimum wage or creating jobs in low-income neighborhoods. </p>
<p>Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s recently announced economic policy <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/12/politics/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech/">platform</a> largely steers clear of race and instead focuses on stagnating middle-class wages.</p>
<p>Few Republicans have discussed racial justice issues either, and Jeb Bush has now <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-calls-black-lives-matter-slogan">dismissed</a> the <a href="http://blacklivesmatter.com">Black Lives Matter movement</a> as merely a “slogan.” </p>
<p>But, about eight months before he <a href="http://time.com/3773964/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-launch-speech-transcript/">launched</a> his presidential campaign, Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, wrote an <a href="http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/">op-ed</a> that discusses the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The opinion, written in response to the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police shooting death of Michael Brown, argues that “[a]nyone who thinks race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.” </p>
<p>Since announcing his candidacy for president, though, Rand has largely avoided discussing racial criminal justice issues. While his official <a href="https://randpaul.com/issue/criminal-justice-reforms">web page</a> refers to an “unjust criminal justice system,” his campaign has not focused on how the criminal justice system disproportionately harms black Americans. </p>
<p>Likewise, rather than focusing on police misconduct as a cause for the recent riots in Baltimore, he instead <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/what-rand-paul-used-to-say-about-criminal-justice-just-a-few-months-ago-and-what-he-says-today-they-dont-sound-quite-the-same/">suggested</a> that they resulted from a breakdown in family structure, a lack of fathers and the lack of a moral code in society.</p>
<p>While Republican candidate Rick Perry <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/02/us-usa-election-perry-idUSKCN0PC2OU20150702">mentioned</a> black poverty in a recent speech, his <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-perry-lays-out-his-economic-plan/video/bc-4334883923001">response</a> was also a race-neutral one that focused on giving people at the bottom of the economic ladder a chance to climb.</p>
<p>For the most part, the candidates’ proposals to address income and wage inequality are generic and nonracial: raise the minimum wage, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-offers-her-vision-of-a-fairness-economy-to-close-the-income-gap.html?emc=edit_th_20150714&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=28708558">expand</a> social security, <a href="http://time.com/3955359/hillary-clinton-economy-2016-presidential-election/">tax</a> the ultra-rich or <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/02/us-usa-election-perry-idUSKCN0PC2OU20150702">increase</a> the earned income tax credit. None of the proposals acknowledges that, because of the widening wealth gap, race and ethnicity have now become almost decisive factors in determining whether a family will thrive or struggle financially.</p>
<h2>Who thrives and who struggles</h2>
<p>The authors of a series of <a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/household-financial-stability/the-demographics-of-wealth">essays</a> recently issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis show that race remains a powerful, if not conclusive, predictor of whether you will be a financial “thriver” or “struggler.” </p>
<p>After analyzing data collected in the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances from 1989 to 2013, the authors found that about a quarter of American families are financially thriving, while the other 75% are struggling.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/%7E/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS-Essay-1-2015-Race-Ethnicity-and-Wealth.pdf">Thriving</a> families are middle-aged, white or Asian college graduates who have above-average incomes and have amassed enormous amounts of wealth. In contrast, strugglers are young, black or Hispanic, are less educated, have little or no wealth and work in low-wage jobs. The essays reveal that income – and particularly wealth – gaps among whites, blacks and Hispanics are staggering.</p>
<p>Average income for blacks and Hispanics is 40% lower than for whites. Even worse, average wealth held by Hispanic and black families is 90% lower. While the presidential candidates’ proposals to increase the minimum wage might help close the income gap, a little more take-home pay would do little to close the staggering wealth gap.</p>
<p>The essays also reveal that wealth patterns for racial groups have changed little over the last 25 years and, except for Asian families, may now be permanent. For example, from 1989 to 2013, white families have consistently held the greatest amount of wealth, followed by Asian, then Hispanic, and finally black families. Although Asian family wealth has steadily increased over the 25-year period because of higher college completion rates for young Asians, financial patterns have remained virtually unchanged for whites, Hispanics and blacks.</p>
<h2>Race-neutral solutions won’t address the roots</h2>
<p>Increasing college graduate rates for blacks and Latinos or making colleges free (as Sanders has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanders-on-americas-grotesquely-unfair-society/">proposed</a>) are race-neutral solutions that could ostensibly close the wealth gap. But, even if more young blacks and Latinos receive college degrees, the wealth gaps won’t go away.</p>
<p>The Fed researchers considered whether education, rather than race, was the main cause for the wealth gap. They <a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/%7E/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS-Essay-1-2015-Race-Ethnicity-and-Wealth.pdf">found</a> that age and education play only small roles in explaining the gaps. Racial and ethnic differences in financial well-being remain even after accounting for the age and educational attainment of the head of the family.</p>
<p>In the last decade, the US population became more racially and ethnically <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html">diverse</a> than it has ever been. If political leaders continue to ignore widening wealth inequality, the gaps may become permanent, and that could be destabilizing both politically and economically. It will be harder to boost the economy in the future if blacks and Latinos are permanently relegated to an economic underclass that has little wealth.</p>
<p>It is not particularly surprising that the presidential hopefuls shy away from saying that race may determine a family’s financial well-being. Though a recent New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/poll-shows-most-americans-think-race-relations-are-bad.html?emc=edit_th_20150724&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=28708558&_r=0">poll</a> now shows that most Americans think race relations in this country are generally bad, making such a statement in a political climate that purports to be colorblind might quickly end the candidate’s presidential aspirations.</p>
<p>Until politicians are willing to admit that whether you thrive or struggle financially may be influenced by your race, however, the United States will remain racially split into groups of a few haves – and a lot of have-nots.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43899/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Last Saturday, presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were booed and heckled by liberal activists at a town hall discussion at the Netroots Nation annual conference. Why would attendees…Mechele Dickerson, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/426702015-06-02T03:38:26Z2015-06-02T03:38:26ZPatriot Act meltdown: surveillance, politics and Rand Paul<p><em><strong>Editor’s note</strong>: On Sunday at midnight, three key provisions of the Patriot Act, including section 215 (the law the government uses to collect phone and other business records in bulk) <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/31/411044789/live-blog-facing-midnight-deadline-the-senate-debates-parts-of-the-patriot-act">expired</a>. The man at the center of the political drama on Capitol Hill was Kentucky Republican Senator – and presidential candidate – Rand Paul. But just how instrumental was Paul in the demise of the Patriot Act? And what will be the impact of the expiry of the infamous section 215? As we wait to see what the Senate does next, we asked a panel of scholars to look at these questions and more.</em></p>
<h2>Senate leadership has a lot to answer for</h2>
<p><strong>Gregory Koger, University of Miami</strong></p>
<p>Senator Rand Paul’s actions have exasperated the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/rand-paul-nsa-spying-campaign-patriot-act-deadline-national-security-obama-20150526">White House</a> and the rest of the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243575-patriot-act-expires-as-paul-blocks-final-vote-on-NSA-reform">Senate Republican conference</a>, who insinuate he is grandstanding to attract attention and donations for his presidential campaign.</p>
<p>The Republicans’ anger probably stems from a combination of sincere belief that federal authorities need these enhanced powers and concern that Rand Paul’s actions diminish the Republican “brand name” <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/175727/republicans-expand-edge-better-party-against-terrorism.aspx">advantage on security issues</a>. </p>
<p>Security, both at home and abroad, was a key issue in the 2014 campaign and could be a Republican talking point again in 2016…unless a prominent Republican candidate confuses the debate by forcing the expiration of Patriot Act provisions. </p>
<p>But let’s step back: how was a single senator able to block the passage of a full re-authorization of the Patriot Act (Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s preference), a House bill that limited bulk data collection as well as a short term extension of the Act’s existing authority? </p>
<p>The simple answer is that Senate rules allow a single senator to slow the passage of any bill. </p>
<p>Paul had the right to debate and offer amendments: the Senate’s <a href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm">“cloture”</a> process for limiting these rights require a supermajority of 60 votes and, critically, several days to implement. </p>
<p>When the Senate reconvened to debate just eight hours before the deadline, it put the issue at the mercy of Rand Paul – or indeed of any other senator.</p>
<p>The obvious strategy for Mitch McConnell, then, was to bring up Patriot Act Reauthorization with plenty of time to overcome Rand Paul’s delaying tactics. </p>
<p>The deadline was no mystery: McConnell has known that June 1 was the date since May 26, 2011, when the last extension passed. All he had to do was to schedule a full debate on the Patriot Act <em>anytime during the first five months</em> of the 114th Congress. </p>
<p>After all, so far the Senate has found time to take four weeks off from legislating, to debate a doomed Keystone XL pipeline bill for three weeks, and to spend three weeks deciding if and how to fund the Homeland Security department this year. </p>
<p>It appears, though, that McConnell <em>does not want</em> a full Senate debate on the tension between security and liberty. </p>
<p>A similar pattern played out in 2011. Patriot Act re-authorization four years ago did not come to the Senate floor until the <em>very last day</em> before the expiration of the controversial provisions. </p>
<p>By waiting until the eleventh hour, McConnell (and his predecessor, Harry Reid (D-NV)) have dared other senators to block the legislation and take the blame for exposing the nation to increased risk of terrorism. Back in 2011, Paul, for one, agreed to let the bill pass as long as the Senate voted on two of his proposed amendments. </p>
<p>This time around, McConnell waited to bring up Patriot Act extension until May 21 -— right before senators were planning to leave town for Memorial Day. </p>
<p>McConnell also hoped to block the House’s <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048">compromise legislation</a> so that Congress would be forced to choose between adopting a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1357">full extension</a> of the expiring powers and a full expiration of the Patriot Act. His gambit failed when a majority of senators <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00195">rejected full extension</a>, 45-54. </p>
<p>Rand Paul is now taking the blame for demanding a full debate on an issue that is central to his political principles and career, but at least some of the blame lies with Senate leaders who have tried to circumvent real public discussion and votes on domestic security.</p>
<h2>Still lots of ways for the feds to collect data</h2>
<p><strong>Benjamin Dean, Columbia University</strong></p>
<p>Expiration of <a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/act-section-215">section 215</a> of the Patriot Act is a symbolic victory for the privacy and civil liberties advocacy groups that have fought against its renewal. However, its expiration does very little to reduce the capabilities of the NSA or FBI to collect communications and metadata (the data about data).</p>
<p>Firstly, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361">USA Freedom Act</a> is still under debate. In its current form, this act will allow the phone metadata activities previously run under section 215 of the Patriot Act to continue <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/nsa-us-surveillance-patriot-act-guide">with several restrictions</a>. </p>
<p>Agencies still have to receive approval from the <a href="http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance</a>(FISA) court for access to phone records. The changes are that phone companies will now hold the metadata, not the NSA. There will also be added transparency provisions such as when the FISA court attempts to significantly reinterpret elements of the USA Freedom Act. </p>
<p>Secondly, even if the USA Freedom Act weren’t to pass, there are still many other legal avenues available to the NSA to collect phone metadata. </p>
<p>The Cato Institute’s <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dont-just-let-the-sun-go-down-on-patriot-powers">Julian Sanchez</a> has pointed out that a “grand father clause” in section 215 allows for phone metadata to, “remain available for investigations already open at the time of sunset, as well as new investigations into offenses committed before the sunset”. </p>
<p><a href="https://asunews.asu.edu/20140902-the-future-of-war">Arizona State University/New America</a> fellow <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/zombie-patriot-act-will-keep-u-s-spying-even-if-the-original-dies.html">Shane Harris</a> observes that national security letters could still be used to, “collect phone, Internet, and financial records”. </p>
<p>Thirdly, the expiration of section 215 does not curtail the bulk collection of Internet and other online communication data and metadata. Moreover, for non-US persons, the expiration of section 215 will have no impact on the collection of their phone or Internet records by US agencies. All these programs will continue given that they are justified under other authorities including section 214 of the Patriot Act, which is still in place, Executive Order 12333 (for non-US persons) and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (also for non-US persons). </p>
<p>That the renewal of section 215 was not rubber-stamped is significant in and of itself. It indicates that there is a debate happening where, before, there wasn’t. </p>
<p>Instead, the Senate voted to advance the USA Freedom Act (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/nsa-us-surveillance-patriot-act-guide">termed “on cloture on the motion to proceed”</a>), which is the first move to limit NSA activities since the 1970s. However, there is a long road ahead for those who wish for greater oversight of the bulk data collection activities of intelligence and law enforcement agencies both in the US and globally.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42670/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>The expiry at midnight, Sunday of three key provisions of the Patriot Act has thrown Washington into turmoil and halted surveillance programs – a panel of scholars gives their verdicts.Benjamin Dean, Fellow for Internet Governance and Cyber-security, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia UniversityGregory Koger, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of MiamiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/382742015-03-03T11:03:34Z2015-03-03T11:03:34ZForeign policy hot topic at CPAC<p>Last week the race for the Republic presidential nomination was kicked off in earnest by the Conservative Political Action’s annual Conference. </p>
<p>Yes, they all, predictably, want to “save our country” from the perils posed by President Obama’s intrusive government bureaucracy and the accompanying limits it supposedly imposes on our freedom. </p>
<p>The attendees, echoing Rudy Giuliani’s controversial comment, all believe that they, unlike Obama and by extension his supporters, love America. They are the only ones who should be entrusted with governing it.</p>
<p>But beyond the usual clarion calls, intended to appeal to the audience of diehard libertarians in attendance, the gathering in suburban Maryland proved revealing in at least three dimensions.</p>
<h2>Foreign policy comes to the fore</h2>
<p>The first is that the early signs are that foreign policy will be more important than usual in next year’s presidential election. </p>
<p>This is explained by several factors. </p>
<p>There is now a pervasive sense that finances are in short supply: America has to make a real choice between spending money on foreign policy or investing more at home. The phenomenal growth of the Chinese economy has fueled debates about China as an emergent threat to the United States. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to achieve their goals and have cost much in terms of blood and treasure. Al-Qaeda successor terrorist groups are proliferating in “ungovernable” territories, most notably in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. And, finally, there is a widespread restlessness about our inability to control the behavior of many governments – principally Iran and Russia -and what that failure says about America’s global leadership. </p>
<h2>Americans are looking abroad</h2>
<p>The second thing the conference revealed is that Republicans believe that the average American beyond the Washington bubble really cares about the degree and form of America’s engagement with the rest of the world. </p>
<p>We are, apparently, frustrated. We supposedly blame President Obama and are allegedly deeply disgruntled with his policies. </p>
<p>So much so that the simple, well-known adage, “it’s the domestic economy stupid,” won’t apply next year. Indeed, the Republican candidates portrayed next year’s election as a historic opportunity to reset US foreign policy.</p>
<p>Some constituencies, we are told, are particularly aggravated - and can be pealed off from Obama’s winning coalition. </p>
<p>The Cuban community, the Republican candidates suggested, is unhappy with the new opening to Cuba. The Jewish community is pained by the administration’s fissure with Israel. Cubans and Jews are, it was said, deeply divided over Obama’s policies. At least some of them may be ready to vote for a Republican candidate who addresses their concerns. And, according to some candidates, we are all deeply concerned about the threat posed by ISIS and the Muslim community’s role in the fight against it. </p>
<p>Of course, there is more than a little wishful thinking here. But electoral politics is about building a winning coalition. Republicans calculate that they can peal off the Cuban community from other Hispanics and a segment of the Jewish community as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy in building a winning coalition. Attracting some votes from these groups (and the funding that goes with it) is better than none at all. </p>
<h2>Opposing views of the world</h2>
<p>The third thing we learn is that foreign policy doesn’t just divide the two main political parties. It fragments within the parties in a way rarely seem in modern times, particularly among Republicans. </p>
<p>They may unanimously denounce the president’s current foreign policies. But they vehemently disagree when it comes to the question of what should be done instead. </p>
<p>The spectrum is enormous. At one extreme, Rand Paul returned to this isolationist grassroots Tea party theme at CPAC, advocating greater disengagement from America’s foreign policy commitments. He <a href="http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/rand-paul/the-tea-party-goes-to-washington/9781455503117/">prefers</a> to focus on more border controls coupled with domestic reforms than foreign engagement. By implication, this means cutting the military budget from its current level of approximately 3.8% of GDP. </p>
<p>In contrast, at the other extreme, Rick Santorum <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/27/cpac-2015-rick-santorum-says-commander-chief-not-e/#ixzz3TFwzDys3">exhorted</a> the benefits of full-blooded engagement. He compared the threat posed by ISIS to that of fascism in the 1930s, and said “If ISIS wants to establish a 7th century caliphate, well let’s oblige them by bombing them back to the 7th century.” He may justifiably be regarded as a fringe candidate at this point. But his exuberant advocacy of the use of overwhelming force mirrors the views of more prominent candidates like Scott Walker and – more modestly - Jeb Bush.</p>
<p>We probably shouldn’t read too much into the fact that Paul won the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/28/politics/cpac-2015-straw-poll-results-rand-paul/">straw poll</a> with over 25% of the vote, as he did for the prior two years, and that Jeb Bush finished fifth with 8%. </p>
<p>As a beauty contest, CPAC’s voters represent only one wing among Republicans, and certainly not the more moderate establishment. But the result confirms the view that foreign policy, along with immigration reform, will be hotly contested in the primaries. And all this before the official primary campaign has even got underway.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38274/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Last week the race for the Republic presidential nomination was kicked off in earnest by the Conservative Political Action’s annual Conference. Yes, they all, predictably, want to “save our country” from…Simon Reich, Professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373212015-02-09T11:13:56Z2015-02-09T11:13:56ZThe US defense budget once again reaches for historic levels. Why?<p>In his recent budget announcement, President Obama staked out a negotiating position with Congressional Republicans by offering a sense of symmetry: a 7% increase in the military budget to balance out a 7% increase in domestic expenditure. </p>
<p>Characteristically, the Republican leadership pronounced the President’s draft proposal dead on arrival. And so began the months of wrangling and posturing. </p>
<p>Much of of this infighting will be lost on the American public. Nothing, after all, could be duller than debating numbers. And yet it matters. As <a href="https://gspp.berkeley.edu/about/history/aaron-wildavsky">Aaron Widalsky,</a> one of the leading scholars of the budget put it, “you can see who ‘won’ and who ‘lost’ by studying ‘who got what.’” </p>
<p>So let’s take a closer look at the numbers. </p>
<p>The fact that the President wants to spend more money to introduce new domestic programs, like free community colleges, is fairly easily explained. Freed from the shackles of reelection, we get to see what Obama cares about. The term “middle class economics” may lack the poetry of some of his predecessors’ initiatives but it is catchy enough to fit a sound bite. And who wouldn’t want to leave behind a legacy of free community college education, however unlikely it is to happen?</p>
<p>No, the real puzzle is the 7% increase in military expenditure. </p>
<p>Now it is true that any Republican who vocally resists supporting this increase risks alienating the party’s base. </p>
<p>But no serious negotiator would encourage the president to offer such a carrot. Strategically it would make better sense to let the Republicans ask for it. So what is happening here? </p>
<h2>The Pentagon already has a big budget</h2>
<p>A lot has been written about the size and growth of the military budget over the last few years. And there are many numbers to include - or exclude. </p>
<p>To start with there is the Pentagon base budget; then there’s the additional budget that is used for fighting wars known as Overseas Contingency Operations; and there are also the budgets of associated agencies, such as Homeland Security or the Coast Guard. The net effect is what many politicians and pundits intend – to cloud our understanding and thus our judgment.</p>
<p>But here is what remains crystal clear: America still outspends the next 18 countries of the world combined. </p>
<p>The highly respected <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/12/countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/">Stockholm International Peace Research</a> Institute says the US spends nearly four percent of its GDP on the official military budget. That is over three times what is spent by the next largest country, China. </p>
<p>The war in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State is a relatively recent additional expense. <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/08/27/US-Military-Campaign-Against-ISIS-May-Cost-15-Billion-Year">Gordon Adams</a>, a noted expert on defense budgets has estimated it could cost over $10 billion in 2015 alone. But this is small number in comparison with the expense of the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade. These, Adams suggests, added about $1.5 trillion in military costs to the federal debt between 2001 and 2014. </p>
<h2>But Obama ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq</h2>
<p>Here is the puzzle: In every other era in US history the cessation of full-scale war has been followed by a reduction in the scale and cost of our armed services. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, the effect was dramatic with <a href="http://lab.isn.ethz.ch/service/streamtest.php?id=184760">an estimated cut</a> in the region of 45 percent.</p>
<p>So, even allowing for the fact that the US is still involved in a partial war in Iraq, why would a president who avowed to wind down two wars advocate increased defense spending?</p>
<p>There are several possible answers. </p>
<h2>Why increase military spending?</h2>
<p>One popular one offered by Obama’s critics is that the president has no plan and is therefore driven by current events. These include the renewed need to shore up NATO’s defenses against Russia in Europe; the continued “rebalancing to Asia;” America’s emergent, and potentially expensive Arctic policy; and, of course, the continued struggle against Jihadist militancy in the Middle East and North Africa. </p>
<p>I have already mentioned a second explanation: that it is a bargaining strategy to get what the President really wants, albeit a rather strange one.</p>
<p>The real answer for the request for 7% increase, however, lies outside the orbit of simple parochial Washington politics and has far more to do with how America sees its role in the world. </p>
<p>President Obama, in the tradition of his predecessors dating back for several decades, considers the US to have an indispensible role as a global “stabilizer.” </p>
<p>According to this view, the chaos we witness would be far worse in the absence of America’s abiding commitment to patrol the Straits of Hormuz, the South China Sea and the Arctic Sea. It would be exacerbated without its flights over Syria, or its troop deployments at an estimated over-600 military installations or bases around the globe.</p>
<p>The logic for an enhanced military budget is compelling: America’s security and prosperity are linked to a stable world in which global free-trade flourishes. This is the logic that has dominated US strategy since the end of World War II. </p>
<p>But that policy is expensive – and we have seen reductions in the past that defy that logic. So it leads to the inevitable question: how much do we need to spend to achieve these goals? </p>
<h2>How much is enough?</h2>
<p>Since the turn-of-the-century, the answer has been that no sum is sufficient. </p>
<p>The rumor mill suggests that, all told, we could spend $1 trillion on various defense services this year. The military services justify this level of expenditure because they believe that you can’t put a price on security. </p>
<p>They need, they say, to plan years, even decades ahead in terms of their boats, planes and munitions. They understandably get frustrated by the Washington wrangling and each branch of the service pushes for what they regard as essential new tools. </p>
<p>But the question remains: when is enough in fact “enough”? </p>
<p>As the candidates begin jostling for position in the 2016 presidential election, they will offer a variety of answers. </p>
<p>Elements in the Republican party, represented by people like Rand Paul, argue that it is time to reduce our overseas commitments and with it our budget. Other Republicans have been more circumspect in offering an opinion at this point. Democratic frontrunner <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/?single_page=true">Hillary Rodham Clinton</a>, has – in contrast – left nobody in any doubt that she would support a muscular foreign policy and, with it, presumably retain a bloated military budget. </p>
<p>Regardless of their current positions, the example of President Obama is sobering. </p>
<p>He was an avowed candidate in favor of a wind down in the military budget who evolved in the job into a seasoned president in favor of its increase to historic levels. </p>
<p>Truly, if it could happen to him, it could happen to them all. Clearly, as they used to say, the job makes the (wo)man.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In his recent budget announcement, President Obama staked out a negotiating position with Congressional Republicans by offering a sense of symmetry: a 7% increase in the military budget to balance out…Simon Reich, Professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers 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/242032014-03-27T19:06:12Z2014-03-27T19:06:12ZAre Ron Paul, Geert Wilders, Cory Bernardi and Marine Le Pen all ‘right wing’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44042/original/22mmmz2g-1395015772.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">France's Front National under Marine Le Pen could be described as 'right wing', but in a global context what does that even mean?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Guillaume Horcajuelo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-debt-crisis-heralds-the-return-of-the-tea-party-19371">rise of the Tea Party</a> in the US and the electoral success of both <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20140323-historic-gains-frances-far-right-local-elections-national-front/">nationalist populists in Europe</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/prime-minister-abbott-the-master-of-opposition-gets-his-chance-17855">Abbott government in Australia</a> demonstrates there are many parties with positions described as “right wing”. And yet, there are vast ideological differences between them. </p>
<p>The political compass is a useful tool when trying to define parties and politicians with a degree of precision. This is particularly the case as new parties, politicians and entire party families are becoming increasingly significant players.</p>
<p>The compass describes two axes: the horizontal economic axis and the vertical values axis. The economic axis runs from a state control position in the west, to a free market position in the east, while the values axis runs from a socially liberal attitude in the south to an authoritarian position in the north. </p>
<p>For example, for libertarians, market freedom and personal liberty is paramount: you can make and spend your money as you see fit and there will be very little – if any – government interference (or taxes, but this means no guaranteed medical care or education for the less affluent). </p>
<p>The state has no business interfering in what people say or how they feel, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/race-act-changes-are-what-you-get-when-you-champion-bigotry-24782">speech</a> that is contentious or offensive to others. For committed libertarians, this freedom extends to sexual, self-defence and drug choices. </p>
<p>As shown below, there are four sectors: the libertarian left (social liberals) and right (conservatives), and the authoritarian left (socialists) and right (communitarians or traditionalists).</p>
<p>The compass below shows the ideological positioning of the main parties in Australia’s 2013 federal election. The policy distance between the Liberal, Labor and National parties is relatively small. The Greens represent the liberal left quadrant and Katter’s Australian Party represent the socially conservative and economically centre to centre-left. </p>
<p>Though the compass is a far from perfect measure, it’s useful in providing a macro view of Australian politics and demonstrates where most parties are clustered. Australia’s major political parties tend to be those that support free markets but are opposed to social liberalism. This is perhaps best symbolically represented in the major parties by Liberal senator <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-conversation-senator-cory-bernardi-4597">Cory Bernardi</a>.</p>
<p>As you’ll notice there’s a big space in the libertarian right. Due to Australia’s political culture this is unlikely to be filled in the near future, though the influence of free-market thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs on the Liberal Party <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/09/06/institute-of-liberal-party-policy-what-the-ipa-will-get-from-abbott/">is considerable</a>. As a political orientation, libertarianism is most pronounced in the US, and is increasingly being felt in the Republican Party.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44777/original/66bgsdp8-1395809126.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian political parties on the spectrum as at the 2013 federal election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">politicalcompass.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the US, the most famous of the libertarians was former Republican representative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul">Ron Paul</a>. Paul was <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm">avidly opposed to military intervention</a> in foreign lands and supported the <a href="http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm">legalisation of drugs</a>. He sounds like a good fit for the Greens until his <a href="http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Paul/Gun-Control.php">strong advocacy</a> of the right to bear arms and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWXwD5eNm70">intention</a> to abolish the Federal Education Department are considered. </p>
<p>For Paul it was all about liberty, the US Constitution and limited government. Paul’s son <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul">Rand</a>, more a politician than his father, is very likely to be one of the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-cpac-straw-poll-104450.html">leading contenders</a> for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.</p>
<p>On the other side of the Atlantic, there’s another political movement often deemed to be ideologically aligned with the Tea Party. This is not the case. While elements within the Tea Party are socially conservative, their principal enemy is government. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1438&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44093/original/nhtxcdf4-1395048478.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1438&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian Liberal senator Cory Bernardi supports the free market but is a social conservative.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of Senator Cory Bernardi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But for Marine Le Pen, leader of the France’s <a href="http://www.craigwilly.info/2013/04/30/the-front-national-a-rough-guide/">Front National</a>, the ideal state is represented as a bulwark, protecting French workers, small and medium businesspeople against globalisation’s rapaciousness, and the destruction of French identity via global consumerism and mass immigration. Much like Katter’s Australian Party, the <a href="http://www.english.rfi.fr/economy/20120503-has-marine-le-pen-made-frances-front-national-respectable">economic position</a> of the Front National opposes selling off government assets deemed essential. </p>
<p>The Front National is likely to <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/marine-le-pen-optimistic-eurosce-news-533013">defeat the established parties</a> at the upcoming <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014">European parliament elections</a>.</p>
<p>Staying in Europe, and in the wake of the 2002 assassination of gay, erudite Dutch politician <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn">Pim Fortuyn</a> – who may be best described as an anti-Islamist liberal populist – arose <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders">Geert Wilders</a>. Wilders is the most intense of the anti-Islamist politicians in western Europe. </p>
<p>In contrast to the Front National, Wilders’ Party for Freedom is economically liberal. Wilders has a great admiration for Margaret Thatcher, while Marine Le Pen looks towards De Gaulle in accord with the notion of <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/165105/dirigisme">“dirigisme”</a> (state intervention in economic development) and his focus on French independence. </p>
<p>Wilders’ Party for Freedom <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/right-wing-freedom-party-is-netherland-s-largest-political-force-says-poll-1.1691011">leads the polls</a> in the Netherlands. It also recently helped inspire the launch of a similar party in Australia, the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-liberty-alliance-backed-by-antiislam-dutch-mp-geert-wilders-set-for-launch/story-fncynjr2-1226844624729">Australian Liberty Alliance</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44067/original/4hnyjx9j-1395027604.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dutch politician Geert Wilders is the most intense of the anti-Islamist politicians in western Europe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In line with developments in western Europe, Australia’s current political environment is possibly supportive of a nationalist populist type party. Secure jobs are being lost to countries with fewer worker protections and lower wages; the likelihood of unpopular asset sales; stressed infrastructure in the big cities due partly to rapid population growth; wealthy foreign investors exacerbating an extant housing boom pricing out younger middle- and low-income Australians from owning a home: these are all creating an uncertain economic future for some.</p>
<p>But perhaps the biggest difference in Australia as compared to Europe is that no electorally significant party makes Islamism a core issue.</p>
<p>The supply factors for nationalist populist parties are limited. Bob Katter’s leadership style and policies are best suited to Far North Queensland and no other parties poll significantly. </p>
<p>When it comes to issues of foreign intervention you’d be hard pressed to find more divergent opinions than those espoused by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm">Ron Paul</a> and hawkish fellow Republican <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/john-mccain-syria_n_3857023.html">John McCain</a>, or the positions of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bernardi-i-was-right-on-gay-marriage-and-polygamy-20130618-2offe.html">Bernardi</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-australia-out-of-step-on-gay-marriage-20131215-2zfbu.html">Turnbull</a> when it comes to gay marriage, or the neoliberals and the nationalist populists when it comes to selling off state assets or mass immigration.</p>
<p>As new party families and politicians enter the fray, “right”, just like “left”, becomes a barely useful term due to the hybrid nature and divergent platforms of today’s parties and politicians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Haydn Rippon 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>The rise of the Tea Party in the US and the electoral success of both nationalist populists in Europe and the Abbott government in Australia demonstrates there are many parties with positions described…Haydn Rippon, Researcher into Strategic Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.