tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/2016-democratic-national-convention-29565/articles2016 Democratic National Convention – The Conversation2016-08-02T01:24:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/633722016-08-02T01:24:12Z2016-08-02T01:24:12ZWhy Bernie Sanders’ supporters should be good losers<p>What does it mean to be a good loser in politics? </p>
<p>In 2015, I taught a seminar called, simply, Political Losers. In the course, we read about political loss in <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/45xed4rh9780252009853.html">labor strikes</a>, in <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo5977742.html">social movement campaigns</a>, in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379410000983">elections</a> and in <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931&content=bios">war</a>. </p>
<p>In all of these cases, the students and I asked: How do losers fight to win again? How do losers position themselves, in loss, to be victorious in the future? How can losers shape their loss to defend themselves from further loss, and, perhaps, recast their loss as an actual victory? </p>
<p>As I watched the Democratic National Convention, these questions returned to mind with immediate meaning. How will Bernie Sanders and his supporters respond to their defeat? Can they respond in a way that will keep their progressive movement alive?</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/678531">my article</a> “Narratives of Defeat: Explaining the Effects of Loss in Social Movements,” I argue that how those who lose respond to their loss can make a difference in their future opportunities for victory. </p>
<h2>The right way to lose</h2>
<p>Bernie Sanders has embraced the strategy of political learning, where defeat is acknowledged and accepted as a learning opportunity, anticipating a future in which things can be done differently “next time,” and recognizing what doesn’t or won’t work.</p>
<p>By accepting loss and identifying the Republican nominee as the target for further party mobilizing, Sanders is positioning himself, and those willing to follow him, for a second try at his political revolution.</p>
<p>Sanders has faced up to the reality of losing the nomination. As he said in <a href="https://berniesanders.com/sanders-prepared-remarks-at-democratic-national-convention/">his convention speech</a>, he is working well with the Clinton campaign, and he has identified the new – if only temporary – goal of defeating Donald Trump. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V0tVD87cZew?wmode=transparent&start=869" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Sanders is recasting his loss and regaining his footing, which may help him to advance his policy issues and to leverage a President Clinton into adopting a policy agenda that he and his supporters favor.</p>
<p>Sanders has already succeeded in having a major impact on <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-democratic-rules-20160722-snap-story.html">future presidential nomination procedures</a>. Despite losing the nomination, Sanders also <a href="https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf">achieved a platform victory</a>, arguably producing the most progressive Democratic platform in the party’s history – or certainly one more progressive that might otherwise have been the case.</p>
<h2>Mistakes to avoid</h2>
<p>Two other responses to loss, however, can be strongly self-defeating. Some of Bernie’s supporters – unlike the candidate himself – are embracing these responses.</p>
<p>First, it is not helpful when losers claim that their loss is the result of cheating by others. </p>
<p>Sanders’ supporters, who “felt the Bern,” have directed their disappointment in defeat at former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and at the Clinton campaign. They claim that the DNC leadership, and Wasserman Schultz specifically, <a href="http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/">“rigged” the primary nomination process</a> to favor Clinton and to disadvantage Sanders. </p>
<p>Identifying “cheating” as the basis for loss makes it difficult for losers to remobilize. Blaming cheaters for Sanders’ defeat signals a strategic weakness in the campaign itself and recognizes (even if untrue) that those who were defeated were outwitted. The resignation of Wasserman Schultz and her removal from the list of convention speakers may be satisfying in the short term, but it offers no meaningful way forward for those whose candidate has lost the nomination. As Sanders makes his peace with the Clinton campaign, his supporters may eventually blame Sanders himself for betraying the cause of “a new political revolution.”</p>
<p>Blaming others for “betrayal” is similarly self-defeating. A claim that one’s loss is the result of betrayal signals a structural weakness. Asserting that betrayal by your own side caused your defeat is a strong signal that you could not even rely on your own movement for support. And attributing blame on the basis of betrayal is a poor basis for remobilization. It is more likely to mean the beginning of the end for one’s movement. </p>
<p>Signs of betrayal claims emerged as early as April in the Sanders campaign. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/08/big-union-leaders-betray-sanders-and-workers">Ralph Nader accused</a> “big union leaders” for having “betrayed” Sanders by their endorsement of Clinton. By the time Sanders himself endorsed Clinton on July 12, <a href="http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_you_are_dead_to_me_now_some_angered_by_sellout_bernie_sanders_after_clinton_endorsement%20%22%22%20and%20http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-dnc-sanders-glanton-talk-20160725-column.html">social media was rife with complaints of betrayal</a>. Sanders’ own supporters booed him as he spoke to the delegates from the convention floor. </p>
<p>By issuing accusations of betrayal against other Democrats and Sanders himself, Sanders’ supporters will have nowhere to go, and they will not be able to recuperate their loss in a way that will permit them to move forward.</p>
<p>To be clear, the reason Sanders did not win the Democratic Party’s nomination for president is that Democrats preferred the alternative, Hillary Clinton. Black Democrats, Midwestern Democrats, Democrats in California and Florida and New York and Ohio, Democratic women, Democrats in primary states – these Democrats chose Hillary Clinton to be their nominee. She won more votes (and won them through the difficult route of proportional representation) than did Senator Sanders. Hillary Clinton won not because of emails sent by the former chair of the DNC or because Clinton “cheated.” Clinton won because more Democrats voted for her than voted for Sanders in primaries and caucuses. </p>
<p>It’s hard to lose, and it’s harder still to lose in an arena where your opponents – in this case, Clinton supporters – are reveling in their victory. Learning how to lose, however, is important. Losing well means that, even in defeat, it is possible to rise again. </p>
<p>Will Sanders and his supporters be gracious in defeat now so they can be victorious in the future? The future of his revolution may depend on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Beckwith 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>Claiming you were cheated or betrayed is not the best way to deal with political defeat.Karen Beckwith, Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/631482016-07-29T10:09:33Z2016-07-29T10:09:33ZClinton finds her voice – but the sexism that greets women’s speech endures<p>After a campaign lasting more than a year and taking in all 50 states, Hillary Rodham Clinton has delivered a speech that will go down in history. As the first woman to secure a major party’s nomination for president of the United States, her <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html?_r=0">address to the Democratic National Convention</a> was a milestone for women’s leadership in the US and beyond. As she put it: “When any barrier falls in America, for anyone, it clears the way for everyone. When there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit.”</p>
<p>Clinton came to the stage under monumental pressure, charged with delivering a historic piece of rhetoric. This was a moment in world history – and it was always destined to be mercilessly dissected. </p>
<p>But as ever, Clinton’s popularity (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/us/elections/trump-and-clinton-favorability.html">or lack thereof</a>) and the reception of her speech have been coloured by criticism of her speaking style. As the conservative website the Daily Wire <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/7909/hillary-accepts-nomination-immediately-bores-ben-shapiro">headlined its reaction piece</a>: “Hillary Accepts Nomination, Immediately Bores Americans Into A Coma Before Startling Them Awake With Her Cackle.”</p>
<p>Ever since she entered the national arena in 1992, media commentators have ripped Clinton’s vocal delivery apart. It has been described as loud, shrill, grating and harassing. No aspect of her oratory is beyond derision – her laugh is branded “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30clinton.html?_r=0">the Clinton cackle</a>”, and her speech derided as shouting, screaming and shrieking – inartfully <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-sexism.html?_r=0">substituting volume for expression</a>.</p>
<p>Many may claim that Clinton isn’t one of history’s greatest orators, but there’s something more insidious going on here.</p>
<p>The criticism that greets her is a classic example of what is called “<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289216">gender congruence bias</a>”. This theory explains that people expect women to act in certain ways – and that if a woman’s behaviour isn’t congruent with expectations of femininity, people won’t like or accept her. The double bind that female politicians face is augmented by the deep sense that leadership is a male domain and politics in general is a domain of power – power that we are not culturally comfortable to have women wield.</p>
<p>Presidential candidates, like other high-profile leaders, are expected to be male and to have traditionally socialised masculine attributes. Women who aspire to be high-profile leaders are automatically judged and criticised against these male-biased criteria. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ToS5Hn9CV-E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Assertive and rational women are criticised for being too masculine – Clinton has been accused of being overly <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/06/hillary-clinton-tracy-flick-and-the-reclaiming-of-ambition/486389/">ambitious</a> and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/10/08/newsflash_hillary_clinton_is_a_politician_why_do_some_pundits_find_that_so_hard_to_understand/">calculating</a>. A high-profile woman who displays gender-congruent emotions may be labelled over-emotional and Clinton has been repeatedly portrayed in the media as witch-like and crazed. Female politicians who are calm, controlled and detached are not praised for gender-neutrality but attacked for not being feminine enough – Clinton has been deemed “robotic” (something she has lately <a href="https://soundcloud.com/anotherroundwithhebenandtracy/hillary-clinton-on-another-1">riffed on to great effect</a>). </p>
<p>The pattern behind these sexist distortions and misrepresentations has borne out in a wide spectrum of research, <a href="http://asq.sagepub.com/content/56/4/622.short">which has found</a> how female politicians are evaluated quite differently from their male counterparts in terms of their speaking style.</p>
<p>One notable difference is the gender expectation that elocution augments men’s power, but harms women’s. Men are expected to speak and are readily heard, whereas women are traditionally expected to be quiet. When men raise their voices they come off as rousing and gripping, when women raise theirs, they’re said to be screaming and grating. </p>
<h2>Shouted down</h2>
<p>Clinton is of course not alone among female political figures for being lambasted for supposedly poor oratorical skills.</p>
<p>At the beginning of her career, Margaret Thatcher was also criticised for a shrill voice and received vocal training to correct the tone, pitch and tempo of her voice to achieve a more authoritative speaking style. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11251919/From-shrill-housewife-to-Downing-Street-the-changing-voice-of-Margaret-Thatcher.html">Later in her career</a>, Thatcher’s speech was praised for its crispness, softness and firmness of tone – her voice becoming central to her Iron Lady persona. </p>
<p>Angela Merkel, who the New Yorker hailed as “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/01/quiet-german">the quiet German</a>”, has been ridiculed for her lack of oratorical charisma, being described as monotone and soporific and about as rousing as <a href="http://www.gingerpublicspeaking.com/angela-merkel/?utm_referrer=https://www.google.be/">watching paint dry</a>.</p>
<p>Looking back, recordings of Clinton delivering her famous <a href="http://www.wellesley.edu/events/commencement/archives/1969commencement/studentspeech">graduation address</a> at Wellesley College in 1969 reveal she was astute, eloquent and articulate, not at all the poor orator she’s caricatured as today. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2CAUOa5m5nY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, a prominent executive speech coaching company has <a href="http://www.thecommunicationcenter.com/demdebate-3-presentation-tips-women-can-learn-hillary-clinton">praised Clinton</a> for her speaking ability, noting that there is a lot to be learned from her delivery. </p>
<p>What Clinton has accomplished in her speech and mannerisms is a delicate balance. On the one hand, she has hit on the assertiveness she needs to be taken seriously in debate and negotiation; on the other, she has preserved the caring strength essential to achieve and sustain an emotive connection with an audience. </p>
<p>Now that she actually has a chance at becoming the most powerful person in the world, Clinton has become a threat to the gender expectations of people in power the world over. This sort of subtextual risk is just the sort of fodder that the media loves to dish out for the masses. </p>
<p>It’s past time for this to stop. The public should be mindful of making political decisions based on Clinton’s vocal style and charisma, and the media must stop silencing Clinton’s voice by judging her speech against male-biased criteria. Let’s take this opportunity together to collectively create a less sexist, more inclusive vision of gender mutuality for the US and the world – one that Clinton, more than any other individual leader, may soon be empowered to make reality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63148/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kae Reynolds does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When a woman takes power and dares to raise her voice, the response is all too telling.Kae Reynolds, Senior Lecturer in Leadership, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/622122016-07-29T09:32:50Z2016-07-29T09:32:50ZA third term for the Clintons?<p>The Democratic Party’s nomination of Hillary Clinton this past week has revived an old controversy in a new way: presidential third terms. </p>
<p>It is a controversy as old as the nation itself. </p>
<h2>The father of the nation sets a precedent</h2>
<p>The third term issue first surfaced during George Washington’s second presidential term, which ran from March 4, 1793 to March 4, 1797. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132239/original/image-20160727-21561-lcsnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Washington’s inauguration as the first president of the United States in 1789.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_Washington#/media/File:Washington%27s_Inauguration.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Broadly popular, Washington could easily have been elected to a third term, but chose not to run for one in 1796. In part that reflected his fatigue with the job. Washington was tired of attacks from the press, and eager to spend more time at home. Also, he seemed to have an acute sense that, as the nation’s first president, everything he did would set a precedent.</p>
<p>Given his advanced age (he turned 64 on February 22, 1796) and declining health, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-age-of-federalism-9780195093810?cc=us&lang=en&">Washington could not feel certain </a> that he would survive another four years. In fact, he didn’t. </p>
<p>And so for Washington, the issue of a third term was connected directly to the more sensitive one of serving as president for the rest of his life.</p>
<p>The idea of a lifetime presidency, with its monarchical overtones, surfaced early when delegates assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to draft a new constitution to replace the clearly defective Articles of Confederation.</p>
<p>The delegates there <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_906.asp">rejected Alexander Hamilton’s proposal</a> for a president elected for life as inconsistent with a republican form of government. From the start of his presidency, in other words, George Washington understood that he wasn’t meant to stay until he died. </p>
<p>Consistent with that implicit limit on how long a president could serve, Washington decided not to run again and, indeed, set an <a href="https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/-how-democratic-is-the-constitution_104322215032.pdf">important precedent</a> that deterred his successors for a long time afterwards.</p>
<h2>Two failed challenges</h2>
<p>The third-term issue resurfaced in a serious way some 80 years later, toward the end of Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. </p>
<p>Having been elected to two terms, in 1868 and 1872, Grant was open to the idea of running for a third. However, the scandals that plagued his presidency and the by then deeply ingrained resistance to a third presidential term <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Reconstruction-Eric-Foner/dp/0060964316">led him to retire instead.</a> </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132229/original/image-20160727-21558-10npvlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">General Ulysses S. Grant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4209267762/in/photolist-7pTUjt-7ogET6-dWBNGi-7rCpur-dWHrzb-767Hvf-dWHrv1-dWBNwn-dWBNAR-763TMP-7r7eQP-7pXAE7-767SkA-aQSmDT-763Vd4-767EbN-767HBY-7ogm2k-763Z8M-7rERJL-7rCujx-763Rkz-7pXPkQ-aPdCFD-aPdDYz-8SnaXv-7rES2m-aPdDZc-aPdDwV-aPdCvK-7r7CcR-9sLgMs-9sLgMY-9sLgJU">The U.S. National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A more serious challenge to the two-presidential-terms-and-no-more tradition surfaced a generation later, when Theodore Roosevelt sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1912. </p>
<p>His quest raised for the first time the possibility of a nonconsecutive third term and, as a result, appears to have been less controversial. This was because Roosevelt had left the presidency on March 4, 1909 (after serving almost two complete terms after having become president upon the assassination of President McKinley), and now sought merely to return to it. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132230/original/image-20160727-21595-3ggnvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roosevelt speaking in convention hall in Chicago, August 1912.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2555560853/in/photolist-4TPVd2-4EzzAm-8kNJcJ-8kKz8c-4EvjTv-4Bh3Q2-8kKyHM-5heoRN-6MzfMg-9AG6aQ-8kNLmq-8kKx8T-8kKxrg-8kKyVB-4Evjvv-8kKxc6-6Xrbb6-6Mzj6M-5Dj7Wi-4CWNSv-5ha22e-79M9wQ-8kKyYD-5henGy-6ZrKFq-4CWP6V-5ha1SK-5henxh-4i9CLD-8kKyQz-4CWP2D-8kKyLV-8kKzbF-6MDwvu-5henoh-5heozY-4EzzCQ-7ev65A-8kNL6Y-5nrgjB-98idK7-7zckfd-6ZnL1M-7kuwpw-7CtkXT-7CxbFG-8dcyop-4Evjor-4EvjRe-JVxNyR/">The Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thwarted by GOP incumbent President William Howard Taft’s greater support from party leaders, Roosevelt moved on to try to win a third term by running as the candidate of a new party in 1912. But the split in the Republicans’ ranks that year served to elect Democrat Woodrow Wilson to the presidency. </p>
<p>It did not, however, extinguish Roosevelt’s hopes of another term. Only <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674763029">his death</a> in 1919 put a final end to Teddy Roosevelt’s third-term ambitions, but those ambitions proved to have longer-term consequences. </p>
<p>The reason for that was simple. Theodore Roosevelt was the political role model for his distant cousin Franklin. And so when FDR began to think about running for a third term, [he had in his mind Teddy’s earlier example](https://books.google.com/books?id=134fup3VQPkC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Arthur+M.+Schlesinger,+Jr.,+The+Crisis+of+the+Old+Order,+1919-1933+(Boston:+Houghton,+Mifflin,+1957#v=onepage&q=Arthur%20M.%20Schlesinger%2C%20Jr.%2C%20The%20Crisis%20of%20the%20Old%20Order%2C%201919-1933%20(Boston%3A%20Houghton%2C%20Mifflin%2C%201957&f=false). </p>
<h2>The FDR exception</h2>
<p>Even so, there was a crucial difference between the two Roosevelts. </p>
<p>What Franklin Roosevelt first began to consider, when war broke out in Europe in the late summer of 1939, was <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/freedom-from-fear-9780195144031?cc=us&lang=en&">a third consecutive term</a>, which raised the issue that Washington had first confronted back in 1796. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132242/original/image-20160727-21574-1uofuww.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Political cartoon in the Chicago Tribune.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Making that problem even more serious was Franklin Roosevelt’s patently obvious enthusiasm for a strong presidency. For a president like him to seek a third term in 1940 raised the specter of a president for life, at least <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29640">in the minds of his conservative opponents.</a> </p>
<p>Also concerning his opponents was the pattern of leaders-for-life that had emerged by then in the major fascist and communist countries: Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union. Doing something that made Roosevelt look like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin aroused even more opposition. </p>
<p>Indeed, no single action of Franklin Roosevelt’s long presidency horrified strongly conservative people more than his decision in the spring of 1940 to run again. As contender Wendell Willkie put it <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=75629">in his acceptance speech</a> at the GOP convention: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>His opponents interpreted Roosevelt’s action as reflecting his intention to remain president for the rest of life. Even though that <a href="http://lynneolson.com/those-angry-days/">apparently overstated</a> FDR’s desires, it is nonetheless true that president he would remain until the day he died. </p>
<p>There was truth on both sides of that particular third-term argument. Doing the job for another four years didn’t kill Roosevelt, but the stress and strain nonetheless greatly harmed his health. And because the war was not over by 1944, he felt obliged to run again, and died in office only three months after his fourth term began.</p>
<p>Given all these good reasons not to elect FDR to a third term, why, one may reasonably ask, did voters do it? </p>
<p>There were three decisive and related factors. </p>
<p>One, FDR’s much greater experience in national security matters than his opponent, New York businessman and [novice politician Wendell Willkie](https://books.google.com/books?id=134fup3VQPkC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Arthur+M.+Schlesinger,+Jr.,+The+Crisis+of+the+Old+Order,+1919-1933+(Boston:+Houghton,+Mifflin,+1957#v=onepage&q=Arthur%20M.%20Schlesinger%2C%20Jr.%2C%20The%20Crisis%20of%20the%20Old%20Order%2C%201919-1933%20(Boston%3A%20Houghton%2C%20Mifflin%2C%201957&f=false). Two, the perilous foreign policy situation at the time. And, three, an improving American economy. </p>
<p>If <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744878?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Gallup surveys</a> are to be believed, swing voters in 1940 thought that putting a completely inexperienced commander-in-chief into the White House on January 20, 1941 was simply too risky, given the dangers the U.S. faced from abroad by Election Day in November 1940. </p>
<p>The American military buildup that year in response to those events also drove down unemployment steadily in the summer and fall of 1940, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/freedom-from-fear-9780195144031?cc=us&lang=en&">undercutting Willkie’s critique</a> of the New Deal as economically unsuccessful. And by 1944, when FDR sought a fourth term, Depression-era economic conditions had vanished completely, something that helped carry him to victory. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132243/original/image-20160727-21595-omrrf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Franklin Roosevelt’s inaugural address, 1941.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franklin_Roosevelt_1945_Inaugural_Address.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By winning an unprecedented third and fourth term and then dying in office, FDR posthumously provoked Congress and the states to constitutionalize a two-term limit, by adding the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxii">22nd Amendment</a> to the Constitution in 1951. </p>
<p>It is worth noting that by barring not just a third term but also more than 10 years of service in the presidency, the 22nd Amendment also essentially prohibited another effort like Theodore Roosevelt’s in 1912. </p>
<h2>2016</h2>
<p>All of this helps put the current presidential election in better perspective.</p>
<p>The two-terms-and-no-more tradition, now constitutionalized, has tended to increase resistance to a Hillary Clinton presidency. While we are inclined to think of former Secretary Clinton as a politician in her own right, arguably, she and her husband, Bill, have always been a team. </p>
<p>As Bill Clinton said on the 1992 presidential campaign trail, with Hillary as first lady Americans would get “two for the price of one.” Hillary is now offering the same two-for-one package this time, complete with promises that <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news/economy/hillary-bill-clinton-economic-job-growth/">Bill will be placed in charge</a> of revitalizing the economy. </p>
<p>And so the Hillary Clinton presidential bid of 2016 has raised the prospect of a different kind of third term: a nonconsecutive one in which the junior partner from the first two terms becomes the senior one in the third (and, quite possibly, the fourth).</p>
<p>If history is any guide, what would make such a third term acceptable is the vastly greater national security experience of Team Clinton compared with their general election adversary, New York businessman and novice politician Donald Trump.</p>
<p>That factor may well combine with growing dangers from abroad and an improving economy at home to put the Clintons back in the White House.</p>
<p>And so even though resistance to a third presidential term is as old as the office itself and has been formalized by the 22nd Amendment’s adoption, the possibility remains in some ways alive, and as controversial as ever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Stebenne 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>Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has revived an old controversy in a new way: presidential third terms. It is, as one historian explains, a controversy as old as the nation itself.David Stebenne, Professor of History and Law Faculty, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/629482016-07-29T04:16:59Z2016-07-29T04:16:59ZClinton vs. Trump: Whose acceptance speech hit the right note?<p>Tonight at the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton formally accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Last week, Republican nominee Donald Trump did the same at the Republican National Convention.</p>
<p>Which candidate did a better job of delivering a speech that hit just the right emotional notes to win over voters? The study of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637756309375380?journalCode=rcmm19">language intensity</a> provides one lens to compare the performances of the candidates.</p>
<p>This line of research focuses on word choice, not the way a speech is delivered, to evaluate how well a message is received. It doesn’t consider the strength of performance – so nonverbal components and other elements such as volume or pitch are not part of the analysis. </p>
<p>At Ohio State University’s School of Communication, I used my background in political speech writing to extend <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/20/2/246/">this well-established field</a> into political speech – like Clinton’s and Trump’s speeches – by running two experiments.</p>
<h2>A focus on intensity</h2>
<p>In a paper to be published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psq.12299">Presidential Studies Quarterly</a> before the election, my coauthors <a href="http://www.loyola.edu/academic/communication/facultyandstaff">Paola Pascual-Ferrá</a> and <a href="http://com.miami.edu/profile/michael-beatty">Michael J. Beatty</a> and I created speech excerpts for hypothetical presidential candidates and tested their effect on 304 participants drawn from political science and communication classes at the University of Miami.</p>
<p>We found that voters who are optimistic about their personal economic situation prefer presidential candidates who use restrained language. This type of language is called “low intensity.” On the other hand, voters who are fearful about the future of the economy are more likely to trust candidates who reflect back their emotional turmoil – those who use high-intensity language. </p>
<h2>Highs and lows</h2>
<p>Trump’s acceptance speech last week was largely high-intensity. On foreign policy, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974">he said</a>, “Libya is in ruins. Our ambassador was left to die at the hands of savage killers” and “Iraq is in chaos.” </p>
<p>About his rival, he said, “The situation is worse than it has ever been before. This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton. Death, destruction, terrorism and weakness.” </p>
<p>Some commentators referred to Trump’s speech as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/21/full-text-donald-trumps-prepared-remarks-accepting-the-republican-nomination/">dark</a>” or “<a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/opinion/donald-trump-acceptance-speech-republican-national-convention-1201820141/">apocalyptic</a>.” </p>
<p>But in terms of language intensity, similar observations have been made by rhetorical analysis of past convention nomination speeches. Reagan’s 1980 speech <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417948409372600#.V5qqSEYrLIU">framed government as the devil</a>. In 1932, <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=23198">Herbert Hoover</a> and <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=75174">Franklin Roosevelt</a> each hurled high-intensity barbs at his opponent’s economic philosophy. For example, FDR warned that the “danger of radicalism is to invite disaster” while Hoover said “to remedy present evils a change is necessary.” </p>
<p>Barack Obama’s <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?280566-10/barack-obama-2008-acceptance-speech">2008 acceptance speech</a> had low-intensity statements like “we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.” And he made high-intensity statements like “the times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook.” </p>
<p>In Hillary Clinton’s speech, we also saw examples of both low- and high-intensity language. She said, “We have to decide whether we can all work together so we can rise together.” But she also said, “America is once again at a moment of reckoning.” </p>
<p>So what does language intensity research say about how these rhetorical decisions will play with the voters?</p>
<h2>Experimenting with language intensity</h2>
<p>For much of the 20th century, researchers found conflicting results in language intensity experiments. </p>
<p>Initial studies indicated people were turned off by <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2785309?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">emotional messages</a>. There is a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637756309375380?journalCode=rcmm19">“boomerang effect”</a> when an emotional message backfires. But in the ’50’s, Yale professors led by Carl Hovland found that the <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/54/2/257/">stronger language</a> resulted in the most compliance with the speaker’s persuasive plea.</p>
<p>Later studies added nuance to our understanding. Researchers like <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/20/2/246/">Gerald R. Miller and Michael Burgoon</a>, <a href="http://cas.ou.edu/claude-miller">Claude Miller</a> and <a href="http://www.wiu.edu/cofac/communication/directory/averbeck.php">Josh Averbeck</a> have <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10510974.2013.775955">explored factors</a> that interact with language intensity. For example, the speaker’s background and experience matter in bolstering credibility. Certain speakers have a wider latitude of acceptance before they even open their mouth. For example, voters might consider Clinton’s service as secretary of state when she is speaking about foreign policy or Trump’s business background when talk turns to turning around the economy.</p>
<p>Also, when it comes to language intensity, there appears to be a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00639.x/abstract">gender bias</a>. Decades of studies have shown that persuasive speeches ascribed to a female name are perceived more aversely – by both males and females – than the same message ascribed to a male. This could inform the presidential race if Clinton uses high-intensity language that triggers a boomerang effect simply on account of her gender. It helps explain Ivanka Trump’s relative success in introducing her father last week; she kept her language mild by comparison to her father’s.</p>
<p>Other researchers found somewhat conflicting results, showing that the effects of language intensity depend on the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.1975.tb00271.x#.V5aHBQL_rjY">audience’s expectations</a>. For example, if people expect Trump to use high-intensity language, it would have less of a boomerang effect than other politicians who may try to use emotional rhetoric. </p>
<h2>Experience matters</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15377857.2014.959689">a second paper</a>, published in the Journal of Political Marketing, my coauthors and I tested hypothetical presidential candidates. As before, the candidates varied in language intensity and were not ascribed characteristics of gender, party identification or ideology. </p>
<p>Unlike the first experiment, the candidates’ professional backgrounds differed. One was a two-term governor. The other had no political experience but had worked in business and owned a national franchise. </p>
<p>We looked at how the interaction of a presidential candidate’s language intensity and background affected perceptions of authoritativeness and character. </p>
<p>We found that language intensity did not have a direct effect on authoritativeness. Perceptions of authoritativeness seemed to purely be a function of a politician’s résumé. But a presidential candidate using low-intensity language was perceived as having significantly more character. </p>
<h2>Judging the candidates</h2>
<p>At the DNC, Clinton needed to use her speech to seize the issue of the economy as well as perceptions of her own trustworthiness. The <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf">latest CNN/ORC poll</a> indicates 68 percent of voters consider her dishonest and untrustworthy. The same poll reveals Trump becoming slightly more favorable but shows that 55 percent of respondents still consider him dishonest and untrustworthy. The <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx">top issue of concern</a> to voters – resonating nicely with our study – is the economy.<br>
Our research suggests a presidential candidate is perceived as more trustworthy and presidential when speaking to the times. People in bad economic circumstances rate a presidential candidate as more trustworthy and presidential when he or she uses high-intensity language. Conversely, people in a stable economic scenario expect low-intensity language from the White House aspirant. </p>
<p>In Trump’s <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974">acceptance speech</a>, he spoke of the economy in relatively extreme terms. He said the nation is suffering from “disastrous trade deals” that have been “destroying our middle class,” but “I’m going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones.” </p>
<p>Clinton spoke of the economy in strong terms, too. “Some of you are frustrated, even furious, and you know what? You’re right,” she said. But Clinton also let a little optimism come through, framing the nation as recovering from “the worst economic crisis of our lifetime.” </p>
<p>The relative success of each may boil down to which candidate does better matching his or her language intensity with respective audiences. </p>
<p>Who struck the right note? Whose rhetoric seemed trustworthy and presidential? The answer to that may depend on whether voters feel they are in good or bad economic times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62948/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David E. Clementson has worked on political campaigns for both Democrats and Republicans.</span></em></p>Trump’s speech was called ‘dark,’ while Clinton let some optimism in.David E. Clementson, PhD Candidate in the School of Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/630402016-07-29T03:14:21Z2016-07-29T03:14:21ZAfter Philadephia, logic and numbers back Clinton for the win – but it’s not that simple<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132440/original/image-20160729-24661-1bwbndy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barack Obama gave a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but will it be enough?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Segar</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Logic and the electoral map suggest that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States, yet even six months ago most commentators asserted her Republican opponent would not be Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Clinton’s win in November is by no means a foregone conclusion. The latest polls show Trump pulling ahead in key states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, which would probably mean a majority of Electoral College votes. </p>
<p>We need to take seriously the prospect of a Trump presidency, which would seriously undermine the bipartisan insistence that the US alliance is the pivot of Australian foreign policy.</p>
<p>The party convention season, full of tears, anger and showmanship, is not the best time to evaluate the candidates. They will meet face to face in three debates between late September and mid-October, held at university campuses across the US. Presumably these will attract high ratings, if only for the spectacle.</p>
<p>Understandably, the focus this week has been almost totally on the presidency. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of domestic policies touted by the candidates can only be enacted with the support of Congress – and the full House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate also face elections this November.</p>
<p>Neither Trump’s protectionism nor Clinton’s progressive measures in health and education have much chance of being passed by the new Congress. Were Trump elected it is likely the Republicans would also keep control of Congress. But a Republican Congress would be very resistant to many of the policy changes espoused by Trump. </p>
<p>The Bernie Sanders campaign has pushed Clinton to adopt a swathe of progressive domestic policies. She is committed to better health coverage, a higher minimum wage, cutting the costs of college education, introducing some form of maternity leave, and increasing gun controls. Unless a Democratic landslide gives them control of both the House and the Senate she will struggle to achieve much of her program.</p>
<p>There are areas where a president can make significant changes, even against the opposition of Congress. Barack Obama has used his powers in areas such as immigration and environmental regulation that Trump would almost certainly reverse. And while the Senate can block judicial appointments, only a president can nominate members of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The court has enormous clout in the American political system, resolving many issues that we would see as the province of legislators. It is the court that defines how far states might limit abortions and gun ownership, has restricted attempts to control campaign financing, and mandated same-sex marriage. The next president could change the balance of the court in ways that will impact on American lives for generations.</p>
<p>When he was elected president, Obama spoke of reaching across the aisle and building bipartisanship, but in practice the Republicans have been largely unanimous in blocking many of his initiatives. The impasse that both Bill Clinton and Obama faced around their budgets is likely to be repeated over the next few years, irrespective of which candidate wins.</p>
<p>Presidents have much greater discretion in foreign policy, and Clinton has a long record of supporting American intervention, both military and through assertions of soft power. Trump has been at times very critical of US overreach, and has consistently argued that America’s allies need to take greater responsibility for themselves.</p>
<p>But Trump’s isolationist instincts are in conflict with his own bellicosity, and his claims that he knows how to deal with Islamic State. Trump also seems quite oblivious to the complexities posed by major issues such as climate change and massive refugee flows. His very unpredictability and inexperience would almost certainly lead to greater global uncertainty and could encourage military aggression by other countries.</p>
<p>Whether Russian intelligence was involved in leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee, Vladimir Putin clearly wants a Trump win, just as he supports Marine Le Pen in France. One might expect this to undermine support for Trump among Republicans, but their capacity to ignore Trump’s jettisoning the last 40 years of Republican policies seems unlimited.</p>
<p>Obama is the first two-term president since Bill Clinton to leave with rising popularity, and Hillary will campaign to maintain his legacy. But he also leaves in the wake of considerable violence and a recognition that even after twice electing a black president, the US is still scarred by the realities of racism.</p>
<p>There will almost certainly be more mass shootings and terrorist attacks between now and the November elections, and how Americans react may ultimately determine the outcome of the elections. Trump presents himself as the candidate of patriotic Americans, angry and fearful as their country changes around them. </p>
<p>Increasingly, the election turns on whether most Americans share his picture of a country in decline, facing increasing threats, or are willing to endorse Obama’s faith in Clinton’s ability to lead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63040/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman 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 outcome of the US presidential election in November may well hinge on how Americans react to the violence in their country.Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620672016-07-26T04:51:31Z2016-07-26T04:51:31ZDreams from their mothers: Hillary and Obama bending history again<p>Hillary Clinton, the first woman presidential nominee of any major party, has a lifetime of experience in fighting for the rights of children and families. She draws on the inspiration from her <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillary-clinton-emotional-mother-33613961">mother’s Dickensian childhood</a>.</p>
<p>President Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared on the campaign trail together at a rally in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-obama.html?_r=0">North Carolina</a>, exactly eight years after she endorsed him in Unity, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91975550">New Hampshire</a>. Now he has endorsed her as the most qualified person to carry on his legacy. </p>
<p>A landmark transition seems to be underway. We might be witness to a rare succession from the first black president to potentially the first woman president, representing inclusiveness and opportunity. These are the values American democracy might inspire in the age of globalization – the age of growing inequality and populist rage.</p>
<p>Women’s political power seems to be entering a new era. In Obama’s inner circle, women have had direct influence on his decision-making – and in the projects to uplift girls and women worldwide, something Hillary has championed.</p>
<h2>Women who shaped Obama</h2>
<p>The women who shaped Obama’s life narrative have been principally three: his mother, Ann Dunham; grandmother, Madelyn Dunham; and wife, Michelle Robinson Obama. The
struggles of these women have shaped Obama’s <a href="http://www.abc-clio.com/ABC-CLIOCorporate/product.aspx?pc=A2983C">self and identity</a>. </p>
<p>The three women in Obama’s personal narrative all came from the Midwest. Thus,
Obama established his roots in the Midwest. While Obama’s autobiography, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father">“Dreams from My Father,”</a> is principally concerned with father loss and his identity before he became a politician, the later book, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Audacity_of_Hope">“The Audacity of Hope,”</a> is dedicated to the key women in his life. It is an overtly political book focused on the fundamentals of the American dream and the values of hard work and responsibility he acquired from his mother and grandmother.</p>
<p>There is strong evidence to suggest that the president has effectively relied on female advisers: Valerie Jarrett in the White House, Hillary Clinton as the former secretary of state, Kathleen Sebelius in the Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano as the homeland secretary, Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, and Susan Rice and Samantha Powers at the U.N. Obama’s two Supreme Court appointments were also women, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. </p>
<p>Obama has strongly supported women’s leadership in politics and government.</p>
<p>This may partly reflect his mother’s early socialization. Ann Dunham was, by all accounts, a professional anthropologist who mostly worked overseas. She planned to attend the United Nations conference on women in Beijing in 1995. She was a passionate supporter of women’s education and literacy development. She had conducted many projects that raised women’s status in the developing world, especially in Southeast Asia, where for almost 20 years she did her <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/surviving-against-the-odds">dissertation research</a>. As a young man, Obama traveled with her on many occasions to villages in Indonesia.</p>
<h2>Two parallel lives</h2>
<p>As journalist Elizabeth Moore revealed in <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">Newsday</a> and Janny Scott has reported in her book, <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/305057/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott/9781594485596/">“A Singular Woman,”</a> starting in 1993 to the end of 1994, Ann Dunham was working in New York City preparing for a major U.N. conference in Beijing. She planned to speak about microcredits and microlending to poor women. This is the same conference at which Hillary Clinton, then first lady, electrified the audience with her now <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/world/hillary-clinton-in-china-details-abuse-of-women.html">well-known statement</a>, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights…”</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131657/original/image-20160722-26817-1w50re4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hillary Clinton at 1995 U.N. conference on women in Beijing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UN/DPI Yao Da Wei</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ann Dunham’s colleagues wondered what impact she might have had at the Beijing conference, where Clinton ultimately advocated for women’s rights. Ann Dunham never made it to the event because she was suffering from the last stages of cancer. </p>
<p>“But Clinton did speak at the panel co-sponsored by the International Coalition on Women and Credit that Dunham-Soetoro had brought together at the U.N.’s initiative. Two years later, Clinton helped launch a campaign to extend microfinance to 100 million families, a goal the coalition pushed at Beijing - and attained two years ago,” <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">Moore</a> reported.</p>
<p>The political is deeply personal. Obama’s mother and Hillary Clinton were “generational sisters,” separated only by five years (Hillary being younger). Both were Midwesterners by birth and socialization, Methodist by faith, ardent feminists who championed women’s liberation, and staunch supporters of the civil rights movement and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.; both traveled the world empowering women and girls. </p>
<p>Friends remember Ann Dunham as an earthy person, grounded in real-life experiences, but a woman with a passion for <a href="http://www.eastwestcenter.org/news-center/web-articles/spotlight-on-alumni-ewc-alumna-ann-dunham-mother-to-president-obama-and-champion-of-womens-rights-and-e">making a difference</a>. She wrote a 1,000-page doctoral dissertation on village economy in Indonesia, the insights from which were used to design savings and credit products for low-income rural clients at the People’s Bank of Indonesia. She convinced bankers to see how small-scale women entrepreneurs can be reliable in building businesses.</p>
<p>Ann Dunham wanted to move families out of poverty, yet all the while she was looking to achieve a major change in the way women were perceived in the developing
world, according to her colleague <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">Nina Nayar</a>. She worked on an effort to convince the U.N. to convene an expert panel on lending to women. The report from the experts became the foundation for the Beijing policy platform and for standards on lending that <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">emerged later</a>.</p>
<p>The professional efforts made by Ann Dunham were in a separate but parallel
track with the initiatives made by then First Lady Hillary Clinton, who launched a project backed by Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh. Both women viewed the Beijing conference as an opportunity to further microcredit projects. Microcredit “was
mentioned in probably every other speech she made as first lady,” according to Melanne Verveer, Clinton’s former <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">chief of staff</a>.</p>
<p>At the conference, Clinton chaired the panel and gave a passionate speech. “It’s called micro, but its impact on people is gigantic. … When we help these women to sow, we all reap,” <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/2008/12/29/20081229obama1229clinton.html">Clinton told the audience</a>. While Clinton may not have heard of Ann Dunham’s work, she was influenced by it.</p>
<p>Later, as secretary of state, Clinton placed a special emphasis on the progress of women, creating linkages between development, democracy and diplomacy – the so called <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hillary-doctrine/9780231164924">“Hillary Doctrine.”</a> </p>
<h2>Dreams from their mothers</h2>
<p>The night Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination, I was in the audience at Brooklyn Navy Pier. She <a href="http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2016/6/8/hillary-clinton-gives-victory-speech-brooklyn-navy-yard">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My mother believed that life is about serving others. And she taught me never to back down from a bully — which it turns out was pretty good advice. …I wish she could see her daughter become the Democratic Party’s nominee.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Women and young girls were watching with tears in their eyes.</p>
<p>When Hillary Clinton receives the democratic nomination in Philadelphia, birthplace of American democracy, it will ring in a historical transition at the start of the 21st century. It seems plausible that the heads of Western powers in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. will <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-global-leaders_us_5776a1cfe4b09b4c43c04895">all be women</a>.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Global-Hillary-Womens-Political-Leadership-in-Cultural-Contexts/Sharma/p/book/9781138829749">my recent book</a>, I suggest Clinton’s candidacy represents the culmination of postwar liberalism championed by Eleanor Roosevelt and a long-awaited recognition of the historical importance of mothers and daughters in the American founding.</p>
<p>As Clinton wrote in her <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Living-History/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/9780743222259">autobiography</a>, “My mother and my grandmothers could never have lived my life.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62067/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dinesh Sharma 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>Hillary Clinton’s work lifting up girls and women has a striking parallel to the work of women who shaped President Obama and his presidency.Dinesh Sharma, Associate Research Professor, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624702016-07-26T04:51:05Z2016-07-26T04:51:05ZClinton and Trump proposals on student debt explained<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on July 26, 2016.</em></p>
<p>The high price of attending college has been among the key issues concerning voters in the 2016 presidential election. Both <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/06/hillary-clintons-commitment-a-debt-free-future-for-americas-graduates/">Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/10/donald_trump_talks_college_aff.html">Republican nominee Donald Trump</a> have called the nearly <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2016Q2.pdf">US$1.3 trillion</a> in student debt a “crisis.” During the third presidential debate on Oct. 19, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton raised the issue all over again when she said,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I want to make college debt-free. For families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or a university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Republican nominee Donald Trump has also expressed concerns about college affordability. In a <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4625005/trump-higher-ed">recent campaign speech</a> in Columbus, Ohio, Trump provided a broad framework of his plan for higher education should he be elected president. </p>
<p>In a six-minute segment devoted solely to higher education, Trump proceeded to call student debt a “<a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/14/trump-makes-his-most-substantial-comments-yet-higher-ed">crisis</a>” – <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/06/hillary-clintons-commitment-a-debt-free-future-for-americas-graduates/">matching Clinton’s language.</a> He also called for colleges to curb rising administrative costs, spend their endowments on making college more affordable and protect students’ academic freedom.</p>
<p>The highlight of Trump’s speech was his proposal to create an income-based repayment system for federal student loans. Under his proposal, students would pay back 12.5 percent of their income for 15 years after leaving college. This is more generous than the <a href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Closer-Look-at-Income-Based/238085?cid=rc_right">typical income-based plan available today</a> (which requires paying 10 percent of income for 20 to 25 years). The remaining balance of the loan is forgiven after that period, although this amount is <a href="https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/hidden-tax-bomb-inside-income-based-repayment/">subject to income taxes</a>.</p>
<p>As a researcher of higher education finance, I question whether these proposals on student debt will benefit a significant number of the over 10 million college-going voters struggling to repay loans.</p>
<h2>How student loan interest rates work</h2>
<p>Typically, students pay interest rates set by Congress and the president on their federal student loans. </p>
<p>Over the last decade, interest rates for undergraduate students have fluctuated <a href="https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/federal/stafford/interest-rates/">between 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent</a>. Rates for federal PLUS loans have ranged from <a href="https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/federal/parent-plus/interest-rates/">6.3 percent to 8.5 percent</a>. Federal PLUS loans require a credit check and are often cosigned by a parent or spouse. Federal student loans do not have those requirements. </p>
<p>While students pay this high a rate of interest, rates on 15-year mortgages <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE15US">are currently below three percent</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131803/original/image-20160725-31171-b8qdqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several private companies have entered the student loan market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=student%20loan%20dollars&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=309228119">Application form image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also important to note the role of private loan companies that have recently entered this market. In the last several years, private companies such as <a href="https://commonbond.co/">CommonBond</a>, <a href="https://www.earnest.com/">Earnest</a> and <a href="https://www.sofi.com/refinance-student-loan/">SoFi</a> as well as traditional banks have offered to refinance select students’ loans at interest rates that range from two percent to eight percent based on a student’s earnings and their credit history. </p>
<p>However, unlike federal loans (which are available to nearly everyone attending colleges participating in the federal financial aid programs), private companies <a href="https://commonbond.co/faqs/refinance">limit refinancing</a> to students who have already graduated from college, have a job and earn a high income relative to the monthly loan payments. </p>
<p>Analysts have estimated that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-10/student-loan-refinancing-boom-could-cost-u-s-taxpayers-billions">$150 billion</a> of the federal government’s <a href="https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/PortfolioSummary.xls">$1.25 trillion student loan portfolio</a> – or more than 10 percent of all loan dollars – is likely eligible for refinancing through the private market.</p>
<p>Many Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have pushed for years, for all students to receive <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_3240407.html">lower interest rates</a> on their federal loans. In the past Republican nominee Donald Trump too has questioned <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/248913-trump-why-is-federal-government-making-money-on-student-loans">why the federal government profits</a> on student loans – although whether the government actually profits <a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660548.pdf">is less clear</a>.</p>
<h2>Issues with refinancing of loans</h2>
<p>The truth is that students with the most debt are typically college graduates and are <a href="http://hechingerreport.org/the-student-debt-crisis-may-be-largely-about-the-smallest-borrowers/">the least likely</a> to struggle to repay their loans. In addition, they can often refinance through the private market at rates comparable to what the federal government would offer. </p>
<p>Struggling borrowers, on the other hand, already have a range of <a href="https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans/income-driven">income-driven repayment options</a> through the federal government that can help them manage their loans. Some of their loans could also be forgiven after 10 to 25 years of payments.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the majority of the growth in federal student loans <a href="https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/DLPortfoliobyRepaymentPlan.xls">is now in income-driven plans</a>, making refinancing far less beneficial than it would have been 10 years ago. Under income-driven plans, monthly payments are not tied to interest rates. </p>
<p>So, on the face of it, as Clinton has proposed, allowing students to refinance federal loans would appear to be beneficial. But, in reality, because of the growth of private refinancing for higher-income students and the availability of income-driven plans for lower-income students, relatively few students would likely benefit.</p>
<h2>Focus needed on most in need students</h2>
<p>In my view, Clinton’s idea of allowing students to refinance their loans at lower rates through the federal government is unlikely to benefit that many students. However, streamlining income-based repayment programs (supported by both candidates) has the potential to help struggling students get help in managing their loans.</p>
<p>Nearly 60 percent of students who were enrolled in income-driven repayment plans <a href="http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2015/09/23/follow-4-tips-to-stay-on-top-of-an-income-driven-repayment-plan">fail to file the annual paperwork</a>. That paperwork is necessary if students are to stay in those programs. And failure to do so results in many students facing higher monthly payments. </p>
<p>At this stage, we know many details of Clinton’s college plan. Her debt-free public college proposal (if enacted) would benefit families in financial need, but her loan refinancing proposal would primarily benefit more affluent individuals with higher levels of student debt.</p>
<p>In order to access Trump’s plan we need more details. For example, the current income-based repayment system exempts income below 150 percent of the poverty line (about $18,000 for a single borrower) and allows students working in public service fields to get complete forgiveness after ten years of payments. The extent to which Trump’s plan helps struggling borrowers depends on these important details.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62470/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Kelchen 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>How far will Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s proposals on student loans benefit their college-going voters?Robert Kelchen, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Seton Hall UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/630062016-07-25T15:48:58Z2016-07-25T15:48:58ZDonald Trump can’t win the White House with white people alone<p>The Democratic National Convention began under a cloud. It seems the previously unthinkable has happened: Donald Trump is now <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html">leading polls</a> in the race to become the president of the United States. </p>
<p>Trump is winning because he is absolutely trouncing Hillary Clinton among white voters. In the latest CNN/ORC poll conducted July 22-24, Clinton only has the support of 34% of white voters, compared with 56% for Trump. That differential of 22% seems shocking. After all, in the 2010 census, 63.7% of Americans identified as non-Hispanic white. </p>
<p>But what most political observers don’t realise is that this white voter advantage for Republican candidates is nothing new, even if it is starker than it has been in the past. </p>
<p>In Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election bid against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, six in ten white voters voted for Romney – but Obama won the race handily, taking <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main/">51% of the vote to Romney’s 47%</a>. </p>
<p>Thanks to the US’s changing demographics, winning white voters is no longer necessary to win the White House. Exit poll data from 2012 found that non-Hispanic white voters comprised <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?_r=0">about 72% of the electorate</a>, but that share is already a sharp drop from past elections; in the 1980’s, this same demographic comprised <a href="https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/">as much as 85% of the electorate</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, it now appears certain that Trump will carry white voters overall, with a huge advantage among white men in particular, but could still lose in November. This is possible because the US’s sizeable and growing minority groups are overwhelmingly flocking to the Democrats. </p>
<p>In 2012, Romney <a href="https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/">won</a> a lacklustre 27% of Latino voters, and an abysmal 6% of African-Americans. And even though more <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/whats-up-with-white-women-they-voted-for-romney-too">white women</a> voted for Romney than for Obama, the president nonetheless scored an 11-point win among women overall.</p>
<p>When the dust settled from Romney’s defeat, the Republican national party commissioned an election “post-mortem” report, the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/what-you-need-to-read-in-the-rnc-election-autopsy-report/274112/">Growth and Opportunity Project</a>, to determine why it had lost. The report had many findings, but one was key: the Republican party can only hope to be competitive in future presidential elections if it does a better job at reaching out to women and Latino voters. </p>
<p>Yet if the Republican party had hired Dr Frankenstein as a political consultant and tasked him with creating a candidate who would alienate Latinos and women, it’s hard to imagine him coming up with someone more effective in doing so than Trump. </p>
<h2>Lowest of the low</h2>
<p>Trump has painted Mexican immigrants as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/02/donald-trump-racist-claims-mexico-rapes">rapists and murderers</a>. He has suggested that an American-born judge was professionally biased against Trump’s business interests <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/31/opinions/trump-attack-on-judge-opinion-obeidallah/">simply because his ancestry was Mexican</a>. He then tried to defuse the justifiable accusations of racism by tweeting a photo of himself eating a taco bowl. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"728297587418247168"}"></div></p>
<p>And whether it was suggesting that Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly was aggressively questioning him <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/">because of her menstrual cycle</a>, or a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/">long history</a> of using derogatory terms to refer to women, Trump has done little to soften his sexist image.</p>
<p>And yet, Clinton’s flawed campaign has struggled to capitalise on this divisiveness. In the latest CNN poll, as in others before it, her advantage among women was thin, particularly among <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-women-generational-divide/">younger women</a>, whom she <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/129483/millennial-women-gravitating-bernie-sanders">lost to Bernie Sanders</a> during their marathon primary. (The rancour of their contest was revived just as the convention began, when the chair of the Democratic National Committee was <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100">forced to resign</a> after Wikileaks released a trove of emails indicating that she and her staffers had at least mouthed off and at worst plotted against the Sanders campaign.)</p>
<p>The same cannot be said, however, for Clinton’s advantage among non-white voters: just as she <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/">won decisively among them</a> against Sanders, she currently leads Trump among non-whites by a margin of 66% to 21%, with 13% yet to decide.</p>
<p>But alongside all these numbers, it’s important to remember that the road to the White House goes through the electoral college – an arcane and obscure method of picking the world’s most powerful person that makes these demographic splits all the more crucial. </p>
<h2>Where to win</h2>
<p>The electoral college system was designed to give greater power to individual states. As a result, each state is allocated a certain number of “electoral votes”, equal to the number of representatives in Congress that each state is apportioned (in turn a reflection of its population). </p>
<p>My home state of Minnesota, for example, has eight representatives in the House of Representatives and two senators (like every other state), so Minnesota has ten votes in the electoral college. California, the largest state by population, has 55 electoral votes. In order to win the presidency, a candidate needs to reach 270 electoral votes.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F9GO3/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="468"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>This gives Clinton a major advantage. Since 1992, 18 states and the District of Columbia have <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/">voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election</a>. Assuming this so-called “blue wall” doesn’t crumble, Clinton starts with 242 electoral votes already in the bag. If she simply adds Florida, with its 29 electoral votes, she will reach 271 and therefore the White House. </p>
<p>Put more simply, if Clinton wins Florida – which has voted for Obama twice – she will almost certainly be America’s 45th president. And even if she loses Florida, she could still win with a variety of other state combinations: the blue wall plus Ohio plus Virginia, for example. Again, Obama managed that feat in 2012, winning many other “swing states” besides.</p>
<h2>Playing to the crowd</h2>
<p>Clinton’s electoral challenge is therefore much more straightforward than Trump’s. Only 13 states have voted Republican with the same regularity as the “blue wall”, and they are less populous; as a result, Trump can only count on a guaranteed 102 electoral votes. </p>
<p>This means Trump’s path to the White House will necessarily run through a string of swing states, not just one. More challenging still, most of those swing states – Wisconsin, say, and Pennsylvania – have leaned Democratic in recent elections. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where Trump both loses Florida and wins the White House. </p>
<p>Again, demographics are his problem. Of Floridians, 23% identify as Hispanic/Latino, and the state is home to the <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/fl/">third-largest bloc of Latino voters</a> in the US.</p>
<p>Clinton’s campaign is well aware of this, and is working hard to make hay of it while the sun shines. For proof, look no further than her recently unveiled running mate, Virginia Governor <a href="https://theconversation.com/kaine-was-the-logical-choice-as-hillary-clintons-vice-president-62767">Tim Kaine</a>.</p>
<p>His addition to the ticket is an attempt to stem the flow of alienated white male voters to Trump, but it’s also a clear overture to Latino voters. Kaine’s debut on stage with Clinton in Florida saw him effortlessly slipping between English and Spanish; he is fluent in Spanish due to a year spent living in Honduras as a young man. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rPrAx7dyAiM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Kaine will be a powerful weapon as he crisscrosses battleground states, particularly ones like Florida with large Spanish-speaking populations.</p>
<p>So even as the Democrats gather to nominate Clinton with Trump apparently leading the polls, they know full well that if they play their cards right, his startling advantage among white voters (and men in particular) can still be trivialised. Winning white voters no longer necessarily wins you the White House.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63006/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Klaas 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 Republicans’ nominee has opened up a huge lead over Hillary Clinton among white voters – but that may not mean much in the end.Brian Klaas, LSE Fellow in Comparative Politics, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604982016-07-25T03:24:53Z2016-07-25T03:24:53ZWhy ‘woman’ isn’t Hillary Clinton’s trump card<p>At a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html?_r=0">recent rally on Roosevelt Island in New York City</a>, Hillary Clinton remarked that she wanted the United States to be a place “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.”</p>
<p>According to some polls, parents can already tell their daughters that people will vote for a female president, and gender should not factor into Secretary Clinton’s candidacy for the highest office in this country. While America has not ever had a woman president, polls have documented that the majority of Americans have been ready to vote for a woman for president for several decades.</p>
<p>That wasn’t always the case. In 1937, 17 years after women obtained the vote, only 33 percent of those polled responded positively to George Gallup’s question: “If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?” </p>
<p>Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, support gradually grew, crossing 50 percent near the end of the 1960s. The population that openly disagreed with such a statement fell into single digits by 1999. In 2012, 95 percent of the public said they would vote for a qualified woman.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-G4TAx" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/G4TAx/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Polling limitations</h2>
<p>But perhaps these polls are not asking the right question. Public expression of sexism is often perceived to be inappropriate or even taboo. It’s not fashionable or politically correct to be a sexist, so individuals who are prejudiced against female leaders may refrain from being honest about their opinions.</p>
<p>It’s also possible that that many voters are not even aware of their gender bias. I call such individuals “aversive sexists” – individuals who avoid acting in a sexist manner and genuinely regard themselves as gender-equitable. And yet, they unintentionally possess negative feelings and beliefs about women as leaders. In other words, the sexist attitudes of aversive sexists are buried in their subconscious.</p>
<p>How is it possible to have gender biases against female leaders without being aware of them?</p>
<p>Cognitive psychologists have found that <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/danielkahneman">two systems</a> drive the way we think. </p>
<p>System 1 is fast, intuitive and unconscious. </p>
<p>System 2 is slower, more deliberative and logical. </p>
<p>Many of the mental associations that affect how we perceive and act are operating implicitly, which can, at times, be deeply helpful. The speed and efficiency of System 1, for example, allow experienced drivers to automatically understand that red means stop. However, System 1 processing is responsible for associations known as implicit biases. And because implicit biases are outside of conscious awareness, they do not necessarily align with our explicit beliefs and stated intentions that result from System 2 processing.</p>
<p>How prevalent are unconscious biases? The short answer is very. </p>
<p>Most of us are aversive sexists to some degree because the implicit associations we possess in our subconscious develop over the course of a lifetime beginning at an early age. Exposure to direct and indirect messages from your family, friends, the media, schools, books and society at large affect these associations. Because of the <a href="http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers">prominence of male leaders in powerful roles</a>, perceptions that social roles differ for men and women, <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/17/3/306.abstract">traditional social roles for men versus women</a>, and <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">pervasive gender stereotypes</a>, if you do not slow down and think about a decision at hand carefully, gender bias can influence your decision.</p>
<p>I tapped into hidden biases in <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-014-9274-4">a recent study</a>, using an <a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/">Implicit Association Test</a> specifically designed to test the automatic associations people have around <a href="http://www.aauw.org/resource/iat/">gender and leadership</a>.</p>
<h2>A little bit sexist</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131645/original/image-20160722-26832-1yrb6ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A woman walks past an anti-Hillary Clinton ad.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>My results showed the mind of the average voter balked at accepting a woman as a leader. The average person found it easier to pair words like “President” and “Commander” with male names than female names. Similarly, the average voter found it easier to link words like “subordinate” and “assistant” with female names.</p>
<p>So a little test says we’re a little bit sexist? Why should we care?</p>
<p>When voters lack sufficient information on relative candidate quality, they are more likely to rely on simple cues like candidate sex as a decision-making shortcut and utilize System 1 reasoning. </p>
<p>I surveyed voters from Florida, an important swing state in recent elections, and found that even controlling for explicit gender bias, the more difficulty a person had in classifying a woman as a leader, the less likely the person was to vote for a woman. Those who had higher levels of implicit bias according to the IAT were 14 percentage points more likely to vote for a male candidate over an equally qualified female candidate. </p>
<p>When I break voters down by gender, age, education and political party, I find that men, older voters, less-educated voters and Republicans tend to exhibit greater hidden bias, though the average female voter also exhibits implicit gender bias.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-ZCW3B" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZCW3B/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>So Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary is using the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-27/trump-clinton-sparring-on-woman-card-previews-contentious-fall-theme">“woman’s card”</a> and would be a failed presidential candidate if she were a man doesn’t hold up. Contrary to what national polls like the Gallup poll show, gender does matter – but not in the way Trump seems to think. Playing the woman card actually makes it harder, not easier, for women to get elected.</p>
<h2>Information and examples can help</h2>
<p>How do we alter unconscious biases? </p>
<p>Aversive sexists do not intend to be sexist. What can help aversive sexists be the egalitarian gender-neutral individuals they see themselves to be?</p>
<p>It turns out, the human brain is quite adept at control and regulation. The first step is to acknowledge that most of us have a little bit of unconscious gender bias, and have our conscious effort-ful System 2 processing take over our decision-making process. If we are aware that we may have these biases, we can begin regulating our own behavior.</p>
<p>Information can also help. If there is an opportunity to learn who the more qualified candidate is, I found that voters who are aversive sexists can neutralize their biases. It is hard to recognize that bias may be playing a role if gender, a readily apparent piece of information, is the only differentiating feature between two candidates. </p>
<p>That said, information is not a silver bullet. Previous research shows that citizens make inferences about a female candidate’s <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/448946?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">traits</a>, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2647681">political ideology</a> and <a href="http://prq.sagepub.com/content/57/3/479.full.pdf">issue area strength</a> that differ from that of male candidates. For example, feminine stereotypes characterize women as more compassionate, emotional and liberal than their male counterparts, who tend to be viewed as more assertive, decisive and conservative. Citizens also have a propensity to deem male leaders as more competent at legislating around the economy, national security and military crises than their female counterparts.</p>
<p>Examples of women in power can also go a long way. It will help when parents can actually point to a real life example of a female U.S. president when they tell their daughter “you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.” And not simply because children benefit from role models. Given that exposure is an important determinant of implicit associations, hidden bias will increasingly become an artifact of the past if there are simply more images of women in positions of leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60498/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cecilia Hyunjung Mo 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>Research shows that even people who consciously reject sexism often subconsciously equate leadership with men.Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/628702016-07-25T03:24:41Z2016-07-25T03:24:41ZThat time when the Mafia almost fixed the Democratic National Convention<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131590/original/image-20160722-26817-1c7nax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=54078784%40N08&view_all=1&text=1932">FDR Presidential Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After a dramatic Republican National Convention in Cleveland which saw Donald Trump finally become the party’s official nominee, Hillary Clinton will this week accept the formal nomination of the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>U.S. national conventions have always been big business opportunities. As one long-time ally of the Bush family <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/gops-moneyed-class-finds-its-place-in-new-trump-world.html?">reportedly said</a>, “For people who operate in and around government, you can’t not be here.” Although some of the usual donors to the Republican National Convention, like Ford and UPS, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/corporations-dont-want-to-go-near-trumps-rnc.html">stayed home this year</a>, the host committee was able to raise nearly US$60 million from American businesses. Yet historically the “people who operate in and around government” are not only legitimate businesses but also, sometimes, less-than-legitimate ones.</p>
<p>Take the 1932 Democratic National Convention. As I explain in <a href="http://www.jamescockayne.com/hidden-power/">my book</a> about the hidden power of organized crime, from which this article is adapted, the nomination that year had come down to a contest between two New York politicians. <a href="https://www.gwu.edu/%7Eerpapers/teachinger/glossary/smith-al.cfm">Al Smith</a> was a reform-minded former governor aligned with Tammany Hall, the Manhattan-based Democratic political machine. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the sitting governor, was running against him, and he was not aligned with Tammany. </p>
<p>If Roosevelt was to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention, he needed to neutralize the Tammany threat. That meant figuring out what to do about the Mob. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131611/original/image-20160722-26808-vy61ho.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You can’t fight Tammany Hall.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Through their control of liquor and vice-markets in southern Manhattan, Tammany’s stronghold, the Italian-American Mafias and Jewish-heritage gangs that made up the New York Mob had developed growing power in Tammany affairs over the preceding years. </p>
<p>The Mob leadership now saw a huge strategic opportunity at the Democratic National Convention to leverage that power into something even bigger: influence over the next occupant of the White House.</p>
<h2>Strange bedfellows</h2>
<p>Mob leaders <a href="http://www.the-line-up.com/media/lucky-luciano-making-of-the-mob/">Lucky Luciano</a>, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/day-frank-costello-died-82-1973-article-1.2536232">Frank Costello</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meyer-lansky-ii/the-many-faces-of-meyer-l_b_4579284.html">Meyer Lansky</a> all accompanied the Tammany Hall delegation to the convention in Chicago. Their Mafia associate <a href="https://vault.fbi.gov/Al%20Capone">Al Capone</a> provided much of the alcohol, banned under prohibition, and entertainment. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131606/original/image-20160722-26832-tfltvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Al Capone in 1929.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24520406">US National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Costello shared a hotel suite with <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CE7D91330E23BBC4E51DFB566838C649EDE">Jimmy Hines</a>, the Tammany “Grand Sachem,” who announced support for Roosevelt. But another Tammany politician, Albert Marinelli, announced that he and a small bloc were defecting and would not support Roosevelt.</p>
<p>Marinelli was Tammany’s leader in the Second Assembly District, its heartland below Manhattan’s 14th Street. During Prohibition he had owned a trucking company – run by none other than Lucky Luciano. Luciano had helped Marinelli become the first Italian-American district leader in Tammany, and in 1931 forced the resignation of the city clerk, whom Marinelli then replaced. This gave Luciano and Marinelli control over selection of grand jurors and the tabulation of votes during city elections. </p>
<p>Now, the two were sharing a Chicago hotel suite. </p>
<h2>An offer he couldn’t refuse</h2>
<p>Why were Costello and Luciano backing rival horses, and through them, rival candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination? Was this a disagreement over political strategy? </p>
<p>On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the Mob was playing both sides, to place themselves as brokers in the Democratic nomination process.</p>
<p>Roosevelt needed the full New York state delegation’s support – and thus Tammany’s – if he was going to win the floor vote at the convention. But he also needed to avoid being tainted by the whiff of scandal that hung stubbornly around Tammany – and the Mafia. </p>
<p>Roosevelt responded to the split by issuing a statement denouncing civic corruption, while carefully noting that he had not seen adequate evidence to date to warrant the prosecution of sitting Tammany leaders, despite an ongoing investigation run by an independent-minded prosecutor, Sam Seabury. Picking up his signal, Marinelli threw his support behind Roosevelt, giving him the full delegate slate and helping him gain the momentum needed to claim the nomination. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131605/original/image-20160722-26848-1sqkyqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roosevelt on the campaign trail in 1932.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fdrlibrary/8077709747/in/dateposted/">FDR Presidential Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Mob’s role may not have been decisive. Roosevelt’s nomination had numerous fathers, not least <a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000074">John “Cactus Jack” Garner</a>, a rival presidential candidate to whom Roosevelt offered the vice presidency in return for the votes of the Texas and California delegations. But it was a factor. </p>
<p>If the Mob leaders were not quite kingmakers as they had hoped, they were certainly players. As Luciano <a href="https://books.google.fr/books?id=EV6jZzpjBOcC&pg=PT105&lpg=PT105&dq=%E2%80%9CI+don%E2%80%99t+say+we+elected+Roosevelt,+but+we+gave+him+a+pretty+good+push.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=rMb6v9jqpx&sig=P_s5cluDa1qv3Ds4ErUHwA8sELA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtxva-0oTOAhVEOBoKHfoEB_0Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CI%20don%E2%80%99t%20say%20we%20elected%20Roosevelt%2C%20but%20we%20gave%20him%20a%20pretty%20good%20push.%E2%80%9D&f=false">reportedly put it</a>, “I don’t say we elected Roosevelt, but we gave him a pretty good push.”</p>
<h2>It takes one to know one</h2>
<p>Luciano was nonetheless a newcomer to national politics, and seems to have been quickly outsmarted by his candidate. Having secured the nomination, Roosevelt loosened the reins on Seabury’s corruption investigation, making clear that if it developed new evidence, he might be prepared to back prosecutions after all.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131612/original/image-20160722-26817-107m2or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Luciano in 1948.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seabury <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/13/nyregion/in-scandal-of-1930-s-city-shook-and-a-mayor-fell.html?pagewanted=all">quickly exposed</a> significant Tammany graft in the New York administration. The city sheriff had amassed $400,000 in savings from a job that paid $12,000 a year. The mayor had awarded a bus contract to a company that <a href="https://books.google.fr/books?id=yUCGRMKb4z0C&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=bus+companies+seabury+investigation&source=bl&ots=Avzs1_CHGX&sig=Y5BAK67CXk8EAWPMGnn72poV7M0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEl_jokIfOAhUEVhQKHVOQBSsQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=bus%20companies%20seabury%20investigation&f=false">owned no buses</a> – but was happy to give him a personal line of credit. A judge with half a million dollars in savings had been granted a loan to support 34 “relatives” found to be in his care. Against the backdrop of Depression New York, with a collapsing private sector, 25 percent unemployment and imploding tax revenues, this was shocking profligacy and nepotism. </p>
<p>By September 1932, the mayor had resigned and fled to Paris with his showgirl girlfriend. In early 1933, Roosevelt moved into the White House and broke off the formal connection between Tammany Hall and the national Democratic Party for the first time in 105 years. He even tacitly supported the election of the reformist Republican <a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=l000007">Fiorello La Guardia</a> as New York mayor. </p>
<p>Luciano was pragmatic about having been outsmarted. “He done exactly what I would’ve done in the same position,” he reportedly said. “He was no different than me … we was both s—ass double-crossers, no matter how you look at it.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Cockayne 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>Lucky Luciano, Al Capone and FDR walk into a Democratic convention…James Cockayne, Head of Office at the United Nations, United Nations UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.