Condi's Lecture to the GOP Faithful

Former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice's speech to the Republican National Convention has been getting well deserved praise.  But take a close look.  It is much more a lecture to GOP conservatives about how they need to change the way they look at the world than it was an indictment of the Obama presidency.

Look at the core messages of the address.  Rice's most passionate rhetoric emphasized the critical role of education in forging a positive future for the country.  "The crisis in K-12 education," she said, is a grave threat to who we are."

But conservatives don't have an education policy other than public funded vouchers to attend religious schools.  The main mantra of the right has been local control of education, which is why there was never much enthusiasm for the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind initiative.  Had Rice looked for creative thinking on education reform, she would have found it not in the convention hall, but rather in the Obama Race to the Top program that has been roundly praised as a tough, sensible approach to K-12 education.

And what are Romney/Ryan offering on K-12 education?  Rice didn't say.  But the math is pretty clear.  If we are going to cut taxes, increase defense spending, protect Medicare and Social Security from cuts, and balance the budget - then watch out for those education budgets.  In North Carolina, 94 percent of the budget is comprised of corrections, Medicaid, and education.  Romney/Ryan promise large scale reductions in Medicaid; corrections are hard to reduce -- so what can a state do to balance their budgets other than cut education.  And guess what - that is what Republican governors and legislatures have been doing already, laying off teachers across the country. They will have to do even more if Romney and Ryan are elected.

The second message was about the need for an inclusive immigration policy - another anathema to not only the hard core conservatives in Tampa, but to the mainstream of the GOP.   Republicans in Congress have turned against the Dream Act (which many of them once supported).  During the primaries, Mitt Romney suggested making conditions so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they would self-deport (which can't be a very attractive idea to those immigrants who are here legally).  And Republican governors have led the charge to authorize the police to check documents for anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant.    If Rice thinks she is going to turn the tide within the GOP on this issue, she has a lot of work to do in a party that appears to get whiter, less diverse, and less inclusive when they convene every four years.

Another of Rice's key points was that both American values and interests require us to support fledgling democracies, protect refugees, fight AIDS in Africa, and confront poverty in Haiti.  Engagement in the world means both using both might and right, the arrow and the olive branch.  Fatigue with international engagement is a bipartisan affliction - but it is far more severe in Tampa than it will be in Charlotte.  Those cheering Rice at the RNC have little interest in supporting foreign aid, development assistance, and agencies like the State and Treasury Department that help us to exercise our soft power.   Indeed, the Romney/Ryan ticket speaks only about reversing proposed defense cuts, which will put even more pressure on the functions that Rice holds so dear.

Rice made some tepid critiques of Obama's foreign policy - but that is really not what this speech was about.  It was really a message by a person who sees that her party has taken a sharp turn in the wrong direction.

Twitter chat tonight during Romney speech

Hello Gridlock fans.  A group of Duke faculty will be Twittering tonight during the Romney's speech at the RNC.   Follow #DukeChat to read the conversation.

Americans Elect --- No One!

The new cool 3rd party thing this election cycle was going to be "Americans Elect." The premise behind this organization is that ballot access laws in the 50 states is a key barrier that prevents non mainstream, centrist candidates from competing  in the presidential election.  Americans Elect aimed to remove this burden by gaining ballot access in all 50 states for a candidate, who would be be nominated through an online convention of self-designated "delegates."  Rules were established for candidates that wanted to participate and to determine how the nomination was to be decided.  

But last week Americans Elect announced that the project had failed.  None of the candidates (those who put themselves in the ring or those that the "party" wanted to "draft") met the threshold of national support required to enter the AE National Convention next month.  What does this flop say about the prospect of a third-party?  Or the thirst of the American electorate for an alternative to the mainstream party candidates?  First, voters are realists.  Most voters know that the third party candidates cannot win and can only serve as spoilers.  Those who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000 know that they inadvertently gave the nation 8 years of George W. Bush.  Second, these movements can't get going without a real name candidate.  Plenty of potential third party centrists like to opine about the failings of the current system -- take a look at Bill Bradley's new book for instance -- but they don't have the appetite to get in the ring and do what it takes to run for office.  And there are good reasons not to -- it is hard to raise money without a party affiliation and apparatus, there are no institutions that serve as a core base to provide ideas, organization, and support, and career prospects in politics or elsewhere can be cut off if you shun your former party and become identified as a fringe figure.  Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that there is no concrete set of ideas that can unify the political center.  The ideas that animate the left and right are well known and clearly defined.  But what ideas unify the political center?  Responsible deficit reduction?  Safe, legal but rare abortions?  Some government regulation but not too much?  I am reminded of what it took to get Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins to sign on to the federal stimulus package in 2009.  They thought it needed to be about $100 billion smaller.  Perhaps there was a guiding principle behind this action, but it is hard to articulate and place on a bumper sticker.The lack of any unifying ideology can be seen in the disparate cast of characters that garnered at least some support on the Americans Elect website:  Buddy Roemer, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Steven Colbert, Elizabeth Warren, and John Huntsman -- people from all over the ideological spectrum.  Americans Elect did not galvanize the unrepresented middle -- rather it was attractive (and, as it seems, not all that attractive) mostly to those who were already politically engaged, but not particularly popular.

Snowe on "Joe": No Clear Solutions for Gridlock

Senator Olympia Snowe appeared on Morning Joe yesterday to bemoan the lack of bipartisanship and the failure of our political system to address important issues like the budget deficit. 

The dysfunctional state of our political process is a common refrain.  But many are proving that this is a much easier problem to diagnose than it is to solve.  The trend is toward more Richard Mourdocks and fewer Richard Lugars.

Snowe argues that presidential leadership is essential, and she is correct.  But was there a centrist, bipartisan Senate coalition ready and able to work with President Obama on the nation's key problems in 2009?  Sadly, the evidence is that there was not. 

Talk of Filibuster Reform Is Back

Frustration over the filibuster has put filibuster reform back on the agenda.  Harry Reid now claims to regret that he did not push the Merkly/Udall reform proposals in the beginning of this session.   Common Cause has filed a lawsuit arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional.   Conservative opinion is split - with some arguing that the filibuster is an essential tool for fighting against overreaching government, while others claiming that in the short term, filibuster reform may help obtain conservative goals - like repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

The argument for the filibuster is that it protects political minorities and promotes bipartisanship.  But abuse of the procedure prevents the Senate from even being able to perform its basic responsibilities and hands power over to highly partisan obstructionists.  Moreover, as the parties become more and more partisan have less and less in common to compromise about -- what the filibuster does is leave important matters unaddressed. 

The goal of the reformers is not to eliminate the filibuster, but to limit its use to issues of natioanl importance.  The idea is to make filibusters harded to execute, so important legislation cannot be held up by one individual Senator with an unrelated greivance.  It also seeks to give the majority at least some ability to control the agenda by eliminating filibusters on motions to proceed (which means a majority can at least bring legislation to the floor with a simple majority, even if a final vote cannot be acheived without 60 votes).

I support eliminating the filibuster for all executive branch nominations (other than indpendent commissions like the FCC).   Presidents should have the power to place people of his or her choosing into an administration.  These individuals are all accountable to the President - so if they misbehave, it is a reflection on the President, not the Senate.  The appointment process has become so perilous, good people are often dissuaded from public service and important positions are left vacant, sometimes for years.  There are ample fora for the parties to battle on policy disagreements.  But when a President is elected - the people have had their say -- and a President ought to at least have the power to place people that agree with him (and the electorate) into positions of authority where they can attempt to execute his agenda.  At the very least, a President should have this power if he can muster 51 votes for confirmation. 

Graduates: Choose Your Bosses Well

Graduates and their families visiting North Carolina this weekend are rightfully focusing on the achievements of their loved ones rather than the exceptionally tawdry trial of John Edwards taking place down the road in Greensboro. The immoral conduct being recounted is on too grand of a scale to provide many lessons for our well grounded graduates being honored this weekend. However, there is an important aspect to this sorry tale that has been overshadowed by the sex, money, and betrayal -- and that is the abusive way that Senator Edwards treated those who worked for him and the damage that he inflicted on them personally and professionally. The lesson for the graduates – choose your bosses well.

In these difficult economic times, many young people are worried about just getting a job, let alone having the luxury to “choose” their boss. While this may seem to be true at the moment, graduates of prestigious universities still have choices today and will certainly have them over the course of their careers. When making these choices, the tendency is to focus on the substantive content of the job, prestige, salary, and location. I suggest, however, that graduates ought to consider another factor: the character of their future employer.

What makes me exceptionally sad about the Edwards trial is how he treated those who worked for him as no more than a used Kleenex. Young people who work for a politician are usually public spirited, committed individuals. Staff are certainly not in it for the money. Some, to be sure, are attracted by the glamour and the power. But in my experience, most of them are idealistic. They want to make a difference. And they are deeply committed to the public causes that their boss advocates.

Politicians demand total loyalty from their staff and they have every right to do so. But in turn, the staff have every right to be treated as professionals and never to be asked to do things – in the name of loyalty – that are unethical, immoral, or wrong.

The Edwards saga is so staggeringly sad not only because the Senator was willing to inflict pain on his wife and children, but because he so wantonly betrayed those who committed themselves to him and the causes he advanced.

A parade of staff members has come before the jury. They were asked to lie. To hide the Senator’s wrongdoing. To move money surreptitiously. To knowingly issue false statements to the public. Perhaps there were staff who said “no” and quit. But those who stayed and did the Senator’s bidding – due to deception, loyalty, or their own clouded ethics – have damaged their careers.

So the lesson to the graduates today is that before deciding on who you work for – whether it be an individual or a company – consider your future employer’s reputation not only for prestige and profitability, but also for its ethics and how employees are treated. Sometimes this will mean walking away from a good job. But in the end, it will be worth it.

Gridlock Sours Professions in Politics

A recent Chicago Tribune article analyzed the interest of law students looking to venture into political professions in Washington.  according to a recent Kaplan Test Prep report that surveyed 758 pre-law students to garner their interest in running for political office. The survey noted that 38 percent of respondents have an interest in politics after graduation--a notable decline from 2009, when 54 percent of pre-law students surveyed reported they were considering a political future.


Gridlock could be one of the major factors in this decline. Students claim to look for more promising careers, stating that little is getting done to create a more efficient Washington. With the concern of paying back student loans graduates are searching for jobs that offer higher pay with less negative consequences. In today's new era of politics students must be much more concerned with their image in running for a political office. Cleaning up their presence online is another deterring factor, which can easily be avoided by selecting a different career path. While there are issues surrounding the current culture of politics and the financial reality of supporting a public interest law career persist, there is still hope. Taking a look at the percentage margin after the 2012 elections will give us a better indication of the future of politics, leaving 2011's 16% decline as an outlier.