On symbolic messaging...

I just got an email from my Congressman, who is in a very tight race against a Republican state senator.

The email went out a few minutes before an in-district rally with President Obama (another pretty clear sign it's an extremely close race!) and included this line:

"Do we want to continue moving forward with progress on creating jobs, improving education, and building a clean energy economy? Or do you want to hand the keys back to people that drove our economy off a cliff?" (emphasis mine)

I remembered someone had used this line, almost verbatim, in our class discussion of messaging for the upcoming election cycle...sounds like we definitely had our finger on the pulse of the D-CCC!

Liz S

Negotiating the Deficit

This year’s campaign trail presents a unique opportunity for both Republicans and Democrats to highlight debt and deficit spending as a critical issue in this election.

Intervening Variable?

The Tea Party Movement coupled with the economic climate changed the pace of the debate. The Tea Party movement continues to raise awareness of government spending, prompting Americans to question how the government plans to pay for programs like ObamaCare and others in the future. Republicans view the movement as an intervening variable. As a result, Republicans heightened the importance of balancing the budget as a priority issue in state GOP platforms.

On the trail, rhetoric is the preferred weapon of choice . . .

Republicans capably use rhetoric in the debt/deficit debate; however, Democrats’ latest issue framing effectively combines elements of symbolism and rational frameworks to persuade voters.

Ironically, Democrats are indirectly responding to the issue. The Democrats’ tactics are resonating with voters who believe in the importance of fiscal responsibility, but not at the cost of critical entitlement programs.

A report from the Capital Journal mentions DNC funded TV ads accusing Republicans of undermining social security. Democrats in South Carolina ran an ad accusing the Republican candidate of trying to make Social Security “illegal.” The ad comes complete with pictures of an elderly woman posing for her mug shot at the police station.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704847104575531940955863592.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLEThirdStories

Mental Health Break
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfrDq7B6fh0&feature=related

Thanks

I dedicate this pithy post to our more conservative peers, whose views might differ from ours but whose values we must consider as we enter the wonderful bipartisan field of public policy.

It appears to me that many of the MPP students are liberal-minded or progressive. Within the context of public policy, we would want policies that espouse greater governmental control. However, many of the stakeholders and colleagues we will work with may advocate for policies that champion individual freedom, free enterprise, and a limited government. It is critical to be open-minded and flexible when influencing public policy. For this reason, I am extremely grateful for the colorful perspectives offered across this blog and in the classroom.

Happy Fall Break, everyone!

-Susan Chen

When Reelection Isn't a Concern

Harry Reid makes a smart pick with regard to TARP oversight:

Senator Kaufman Selected as New TARP Cop

This caught my eye for a number of reasons. First, Senator Kaufman is a Duke grad and Duke professor currently filling Vice President Biden's old Senate seat. Second, Senator Kaufman seems like a great pick for "TARP Cop" because he's not running for reelection and never actually ran for election in the first place. Matt Taibbi explains this better than I can:

"...Kaufman has been sort of a test case proving that legislators can actually do their jobs the way they are supposed to when you remove the need to constantly raise money from their job description. Kaufman didn't need to raise money for a run, because he was appointed, and didn't need to raise money for re-election, because he's stepping down. I don't think it's a coincidence that he's been the realest guy on the Hill on the Wall Street stuff (along with a few others like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown). So it's definitely good to see him get the COP job."

So is Kaufman an example of a politician who is able to--because of a very unique set of circumstances--operate completely outside of Arnold's model? Would we all be better off if more members of Congress were similarly unconcerned with reelection? Would term limits do the trick? I don't know, but I sure hope he's around next year so I can take one of his classes and ask him.


Evan

DADT Article

A lot of people have asked me (as the token Army guy) what I think about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Without giving a concrete answer to this which might spoil any thought provoking commentary, I can see why both sides of the argument work. For getting rid of DADT, it is prejudicial and prevents the military from tapping into a huge resource pool of quality recruits. One of my best friends from West Point, who would have been a phenomenal officer, was discharged under this policy and it was simply a waste of talent. On the keeping it side, you have to realize where the main recruits for the Army are coming from - they're 18 year old kids with different backgrounds than you and I have. These sort of people may not have been exposed to the variety of folks that we have and without judging their views, may have a different thoughts on homosexuality than we have. Add this problem in with the close quarters and other issues that the Army presents (sharing sleeping bags for warmth in Ranger School, open gang-style showers after pt, the macho factor etc.), some people may not feel comfortable working with homosexuals, and this can lead to problems.

Either way, one of my classmates (who is also doing a MPP program right now) posted this article and I found it very interesting. It puts a human face on the policy, and while the author is coming from one side, remember that whether or not you agree with DADT, the side advocating to keep the policy makes valid points as well. So enjoy the article and make your own judgment call. If you're really interested in my opinion, we can talk offline.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-be-all-you-can-be/

-Matt

Hollow Hope?

Hi,

Long time reader, first time blogger here.

Although I have not yet finished the reading, the topic itself is galvanizing for me and of what I have read so far, I felt I had to post.

I am under the impression, so far, that Rosenberg is under the impression that courts (and the Supreme Court) have not been and are currently not a good vehicle for social change, using, among other things, the notion that courts are "political" institutions and are therefore not influenced by the public (at least in comparison to other institutions). He may be accurate to some extent, but he seems to suggest that our understanding of courts and their abilities to create social change is overestimated/exaggerated and should be disabused. Of course, Rosenberg shall be the great disabuser... Yikes, not for me he won't. (I will continue to have an open mind though as I read further)

Perhaps he starts to cover it in the reading, but right now I several criticisms.

First, the SC is not necessarily intended to function as a means for social change. Its simply not its purpose. So, to suggest that the Court is not good at it, or has dne a poor job of it in the past, is rediculous to me.

Secondly, as it turns out, and Im sure Rosenberg is well aware, the Court created its own role in Marbury v. Madison (1803) essentially giving themselves the power to strike down federal legislation. We have since accepted this role, and for the most part, like it. My point is that its very essence is about NOT allowing certain legislation to pass when it (legislation) stomps on the faces of the minority. At least, this is what "active" courts have done, and this, in my humble opinion, is what they SHOULD do. i.e. be active only when the majority, with their elected officials, decide to pass legislation that tramples on the minority in horendous ways. Segregation is an example that comes to mind.

Third: The Court has indeed created Social change. Rulings have had unintended consequences of course, but nevertheless, they have been "active" when necessary (and perhapds not enough) and created social change. The Miranda ruling, for example, had immediate effects on police departments and the justice process. I will hold off for now, because I am probably digging a deep hole for myself, but if people are interested, I highly rec. a book called "The Least Dangerous Branch?". This covers several public policy areas where the Court indeed had an impact and created social change (along with a lot of consequences) but it also discusses how such rulings disabuse the majority and our represetatives. I hope I made some point in this rambling, however "hollow" it may be. See everyone in class.

Davey

Breaking it down

I just had to share this link. For those of you who haven't seen it, King Abdullah II of Jordan was on John Stewart last night. They were discussing the complexities of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the dynamics in the Middle East. Abdullah does a fantastic job of giving rational, institutional, and symbolic arguments for why serious efforts need to be made (by the US, Israel, and Arab leaders) to resolve the conflict.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/09/24/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-jordans-king-abdullah-ii/

Anna