As I write this the government is 7 days away from a shutdown that neither party will admit to wanting. Yet, the irrationality of rational action may well produce this undesirable outcome. At the heart of it lies the fact that some in the GOP, mostly freshman and sophomore Tea Party Republicans, hate the president and his healthcare law so much that they are willing to shut down the government and forfeit their own paychecks, prevent Social Security payments from being made, and cause IOU's to be delivered to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Add to that the economic chaos as people dependent upon these checks stop going out to eat or to ballgames or shopping and it is a recipe for disaster. All because of some misguided belief that the Affordable Healthcare Act is some kind of socialist medical bogeyman that must be killed no matter the cost to representative democracy.
Yet, even though the Tea Party cannot win this fight it is one they want to and, indeed, must wage. First, they cannot win because the parliamentary rules of the Senate preclude it. Sometime in the next few days Majority Leader Harry Reid will make a motion to proceed on the continuing resolution (CR) stripping funding from Obamacare that passed the House on Friday. This motion can be filibustered, which will put Republicans in the awkward position of opposing a resolution their colleagues in the House were urged to pass. So either they don't filibuster the resolution or Reid moves for cloture on the resolution, which will take 60 votes (55 Democrats plus 5 from the GOP). He will likely get many more than 60. Once cloture has been invoked Reid can offer an amendment to the resolution that strips the defund language out, which can pass with only 51 votes. Republicans can then filibuster the new resolution or allow it to pass, in which case it goes back to the House. Speaker John Boehner will then have the clean continuing resolution he originally wanted to pass that maintains the sequester level of spending through mid-December. However, this clean CR will still need to garner majority support in the House to pass and be sent to the president. Here's where things get sticky for Speaker Boehner.
As of the start of the 113th Congress in January of this year the Tea Party Caucus had 49 members, all Republicans. The GOP currently holds 233 seats in the House and needs 218 votes to pass the clean CR. If the Tea Party Caucus remains firm in its resolve to defund Obamacare and vote against any CR that does not do so it leaves the Speaker in a bind. Assuming Boehner, like all other members of Congress, is a self-interested, rational actor whose primary goal is winning re-election and maintaining his position (as Mayhew claims), he will not bring the clean CR to the floor for a vote. Why not? Because doing so will mean he must rely on Democratic support to pass the CR, thus violating the unwritten 'Hastert Rule', which states that a measure may only be brought to the floor when it can pass with 218 votes from the majority party (the minority is free to join in but cannot provide the votes that put the bill over the top). Boehner has violated this rule on at least three occasions this year already but if he does it again he may well see a movement to replace him as speaker. So the rational thing to do is stand his ground even if it results in the irrational action of a government shutdown.
Likewise for Tea Party members it is entirely rational for their self-preservation to oppose any CR that does not defund Obamacare. Nationally, polls show that a majority of Americans, and even a majority of Republicans, oppose a government shutdown, the Tea Party Caucus members do not have a national constituency. Only the president has that. Tea Party members have a dual constituency of a different nature. First, they must answer to the voters in their congressional districts that elected them to represent their interests in Washington, D.C. In many of these districts the voters are as conservative, if not more so, than the members themselves. The boundary lines in many of these districts have been drawn to elect Republicans to the House and have been made as safe as possible for the incumbent. Further, most of these members represent districts that are between 10 and 15 percentage points more conservative than the nation as a whole, according to the non-partisan Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index of the 113th Congress. A vote that defies the wishes of their constituents may well lead to a primary challenge from the right. Thus, a self-interested Tea Party member must oppose the clean CR if he/she hopes to be reelected.
The second constituency for Tea Party Caucus members to answer to are the funders who paid for their campaigns. Contrary to popular perception most Tea Party members did not arrive in Washington based on a groundswell of grass roots activism. True, they may have won the district primary based on grass roots support but that alone does not win congressional elections. It takes money, and lots of it to win a seat in the House. Much of the fundraising comes from special interest groups like the Club for Growth or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These organizations have vowed to make sure that the voting constituents know if a Tea Party member backs down on the defunding movement. Thus, it becomes rational for Tea Party members to take a stance that may well result in the irrational act of shutting down the government and causing great harm to the national economy, the GOP, and many Americans.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
Is Obamacare Really Turning Our 'Full Time Economy into a Part Time Economy'?
It must really be nice not to have to support anything you say as a member of Congress. I sure wish I had that kind of immunity when I speak or write something. Take, for example, Eric Cantor's (R-VA) statement about the effect of Obamacare on the U.S. economy. In justifying his vote for the continuing resolution to keep federal spending at current levels while defunding Obamacare he said,
First, Cantor levels a generic claim about how 'major employers and small businesses' are 'cutting back benefits and cutting back hours.' Notice that he does not provide any source for this claim other than '...we hear stories.' Are these 'stories' representative of all major employers and small businesses? We have no way of knowing because Representative Cantor does not give us any idea where these 'stories' are coming from. That means we'll have to do some searching on our own. According to Fox Business News, which cites two surveys but doesn't provide links to the data, approximately 20% of the 603 small business owners surveyed by the Society for Human Resource Management have reduced workers hours because of the employer mandate requiring health insurance coverage by employers with 50 or more employees. If my math is correct, that means 80% of the small businesses surveyed have not reduced workers hours. Yet, we still do not have any idea if these 603 businesses are part of a random, representative sample or a convenience sample. Unfortunately, one has to pay a membership fee to get access to the data and methodology utilized in this survey. All we can tell from the results released is that a small percentage of small businesses have decided it is economically advantageous to reduce the number of hours part timers work to less than 30. The problem with the first part of Cantor's statement is that he doesn't make it clear that this is happening among a small number of employers. Further, as the Fox article indicates, some employers are actually increasing the number of hours full time (over 32 hours per week) are working to compensate for reduced hours by part timers. Thus, the net economic effect is unclear.
The second part of Cantor's statement is more problematic as he makes the claim that Obamacare '...is turning our full time economy into a part time economy.' Neither of the two surveys the Fox News story referenced indicated that any such thing is happening. There is also no data to support the connection between increasing hiring of part time workers and the health care law. Note that the surveys found that employers were reducing the hours of part time employees, not full time employees. What Cantor is probably talking about is the fact that part time employment has been growing at a faster pace than full time employment in the U.S. economy. But that trend began long before the Affordable Health Care Act ever saw the light of day. The chart below shows the growth of part time jobs versus full time jobs since the start of the Great Recession in late 2007. The full source of the data is here.
Once again, Cantor makes the fatal error of equating correlation with causation, as politicians and amateur statisticians are frequently apt to do. That's not to say Cantor is wrong...it's just that there isn't enough evidence to support the contention he makes. Further, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are approximately 144 million jobs in America today. Roughly 81% of those are full time jobs. It is unknown what percentage of people working full time jobs also have second part time jobs. Even so, with 81% of American jobs being full time jobs with an average hourly wage of $23.98 it seems safe to say that we are in no current danger of entering into a 'part time economy.' In fact, as more and more baby boomers retire from their full time jobs, they may welcome the creation of more part time opportunities.
Yet another reason for the growth in part time employment is where the job growth is occurring. Most job growth since 2009 has been in the hospitality and retail industries, which typically pay lower wages and provide fewer benefits than industries such as healthcare and manufacturing. But this is part of a much longer term trend that began in the 1980's as American manufacturers found it easier and cheaper to outsource production. As the country has moved from an economy that makes things to one that provides services employers have found more need for part time workers to give them the flexibility to adjust to lulls in the business cycle. For example, in the restaurant industry, which has exploded in size over the past 30 years, it is not always necessary to have a full crew so there are many more part time jobs in food service. That makes good economic sense. The same is true in retail services. It would be more troubling if industries that traditionally employed full time personnel were shifting to part time personnel to avoid providing health insurance. Fortunately for the country (and unfortunately for Mr. Cantor), there is no evidence that such a shift has been or will occur because of the Affordable Care Act. The truth is that most Americans who work full time already have health benefits provided by their employers and that is very likely to remain the case as the ACA enters full implementation in 2015.
“Each week, we hear stories about how both major employers and small businesses are cutting back benefits and cutting back hours. The president’s health care law is turning our full time economy into a part time economy.”As a political scientist a good part of my job involves being skeptical about truth claims made by politicians, especially when they involve cause and effect. So let's dissect Cantor's truth claim in the above statement.
First, Cantor levels a generic claim about how 'major employers and small businesses' are 'cutting back benefits and cutting back hours.' Notice that he does not provide any source for this claim other than '...we hear stories.' Are these 'stories' representative of all major employers and small businesses? We have no way of knowing because Representative Cantor does not give us any idea where these 'stories' are coming from. That means we'll have to do some searching on our own. According to Fox Business News, which cites two surveys but doesn't provide links to the data, approximately 20% of the 603 small business owners surveyed by the Society for Human Resource Management have reduced workers hours because of the employer mandate requiring health insurance coverage by employers with 50 or more employees. If my math is correct, that means 80% of the small businesses surveyed have not reduced workers hours. Yet, we still do not have any idea if these 603 businesses are part of a random, representative sample or a convenience sample. Unfortunately, one has to pay a membership fee to get access to the data and methodology utilized in this survey. All we can tell from the results released is that a small percentage of small businesses have decided it is economically advantageous to reduce the number of hours part timers work to less than 30. The problem with the first part of Cantor's statement is that he doesn't make it clear that this is happening among a small number of employers. Further, as the Fox article indicates, some employers are actually increasing the number of hours full time (over 32 hours per week) are working to compensate for reduced hours by part timers. Thus, the net economic effect is unclear.
The second part of Cantor's statement is more problematic as he makes the claim that Obamacare '...is turning our full time economy into a part time economy.' Neither of the two surveys the Fox News story referenced indicated that any such thing is happening. There is also no data to support the connection between increasing hiring of part time workers and the health care law. Note that the surveys found that employers were reducing the hours of part time employees, not full time employees. What Cantor is probably talking about is the fact that part time employment has been growing at a faster pace than full time employment in the U.S. economy. But that trend began long before the Affordable Health Care Act ever saw the light of day. The chart below shows the growth of part time jobs versus full time jobs since the start of the Great Recession in late 2007. The full source of the data is here.
Once again, Cantor makes the fatal error of equating correlation with causation, as politicians and amateur statisticians are frequently apt to do. That's not to say Cantor is wrong...it's just that there isn't enough evidence to support the contention he makes. Further, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are approximately 144 million jobs in America today. Roughly 81% of those are full time jobs. It is unknown what percentage of people working full time jobs also have second part time jobs. Even so, with 81% of American jobs being full time jobs with an average hourly wage of $23.98 it seems safe to say that we are in no current danger of entering into a 'part time economy.' In fact, as more and more baby boomers retire from their full time jobs, they may welcome the creation of more part time opportunities.
Yet another reason for the growth in part time employment is where the job growth is occurring. Most job growth since 2009 has been in the hospitality and retail industries, which typically pay lower wages and provide fewer benefits than industries such as healthcare and manufacturing. But this is part of a much longer term trend that began in the 1980's as American manufacturers found it easier and cheaper to outsource production. As the country has moved from an economy that makes things to one that provides services employers have found more need for part time workers to give them the flexibility to adjust to lulls in the business cycle. For example, in the restaurant industry, which has exploded in size over the past 30 years, it is not always necessary to have a full crew so there are many more part time jobs in food service. That makes good economic sense. The same is true in retail services. It would be more troubling if industries that traditionally employed full time personnel were shifting to part time personnel to avoid providing health insurance. Fortunately for the country (and unfortunately for Mr. Cantor), there is no evidence that such a shift has been or will occur because of the Affordable Care Act. The truth is that most Americans who work full time already have health benefits provided by their employers and that is very likely to remain the case as the ACA enters full implementation in 2015.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Let's Just Mothball the Whole Dang Thing....
Of course, I am referring to the impending government shutdown if lawmakers in Washington cannot come up with a compromise continuing resolution (hereafter, CR) to maintain government operations beyond the end of the 2013 Fiscal Year (September 30, 2013). Seems like we have been here before both in the recent past and nearly 20 years ago when Bill Clinton was president. It did not go well for the majority party in Congress after the two shutdowns in 1995 and there is little indication it will go well for them this time, if it happens. But, as Ezra Klein points out, the GOP has a collective action problem. On the one hand it may be disastrous for the GOP if the government actually shuts down for any length of time. On the other hand, most Republicans represent safe conservative districts (for a variety of reasons I won't go into here) so taking a staunch, fiscally conservative stance will win them brownie points with their core constituents back home and, perhaps, stave off the all too frequent 'tea-party' primary challenges emerging from the hard right these days.
The question before the House is a simple one: What level of funding should the government operate at for fiscal 2014? Had Congress done its job and actually worked out a budget deal over the past year, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet, here we are on the verge of another needless crisis created by those who want to score political points on both the right and the left. In reality, the issue is not whether to fund the government. A clean CR that maintains the current level of funding, including the sequester cuts implemented in March, could probably pass with about 150 Republican votes and the rest coming from Democrats. Of course, that would be deadly for Speaker John Boehner so he has to offer a CR that does all of that and includes the tea party pipe dream of defunding Obamacare. So...that CR likely passes the House on a strict party line vote and goes to the Senate, which will strip the defunding of Obamacare from the CR, leaving us no closer to averting a government shutdown.
In yet another effort to repeal Obamacare, the Republican Study Committee released a new proposal that will completely repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with the American Health Care Reform Act. The proposal includes the following main points:
So, while the Republican Study Committee proposal has some good aspects until it finds a way to deal with the affordability issue for the working poor it probably will go about as far as the CR that defunds Obamacare. Which is likely a place filled with mothballs.
The question before the House is a simple one: What level of funding should the government operate at for fiscal 2014? Had Congress done its job and actually worked out a budget deal over the past year, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet, here we are on the verge of another needless crisis created by those who want to score political points on both the right and the left. In reality, the issue is not whether to fund the government. A clean CR that maintains the current level of funding, including the sequester cuts implemented in March, could probably pass with about 150 Republican votes and the rest coming from Democrats. Of course, that would be deadly for Speaker John Boehner so he has to offer a CR that does all of that and includes the tea party pipe dream of defunding Obamacare. So...that CR likely passes the House on a strict party line vote and goes to the Senate, which will strip the defunding of Obamacare from the CR, leaving us no closer to averting a government shutdown.
In yet another effort to repeal Obamacare, the Republican Study Committee released a new proposal that will completely repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with the American Health Care Reform Act. The proposal includes the following main points:
- Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.
- Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.
- Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.
- Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.
- Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.
- Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.
- Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.
So, while the Republican Study Committee proposal has some good aspects until it finds a way to deal with the affordability issue for the working poor it probably will go about as far as the CR that defunds Obamacare. Which is likely a place filled with mothballs.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
If They Only Had a Brain...
...they could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, Consultin' with the rain.
And their heads they'd be scratchin' while their thoughts were busy hatchin'
If they only had a brain.
And their heads they'd be scratchin' while their thoughts were busy hatchin'
If they only had a brain.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Death of the Voting Rights Act: A Law No Longer Needed or a Prescription for Voter Suppression?
After signing the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which gave Congress and the Justice Department the authority to pre-clear any and all changes to voting practices, laws, etc... in the states (mostly southern) with past histories of grievous discrimination on the basis of race, President Lyndon B Johnson reportedly remarked that he had just ensured southerners would vote Republican for generations to come. History tells us that his remark was accurate, though the change did not happen nearly as fast as Johnson had forecast. A quick look at the electoral maps in the presidential elections since 1968 shows a growing pattern of southern voters, predominately white southern voters, switching from the Democrats to the Republicans. By 1980, the transition was complete, though Bill Clinton, a moderate southern Democrat, was able to carry a few states south of the Mason-Dixon line in 1992 and 1996. The transition was much slower in the House and the Senate, though today there are few Democrats representing any of the old confederacy. Those that do are usually from districts drawn with a majority population that is African-American (i.e., Mississippi's 2nd Congressional District). During that same period, African-American participation in elections, particularly in the South, rose dramatically to the point where it is now on par with that of white participation in elections. There seem to be two primary viewpoints on the matter today. I'll discuss them each in turn.
The first view is that because black participation in elections has increased to the level of whites, the Voting Rights Act is moot and no longer necessary. Or at least the part of it requiring any changes to voting procedures by the states subject to the law be given clearance by the Justice Department prior to implementation. That's what the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling issued by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on June 25, 2013. In Roberts' view, the states singled out by the 1965 law have changed. Racism and voter suppression efforts are a thing of the past. Thus, the formula determining which states are subject to the law is outdated and unnecessary. The Court did not strike down the concept of pre-clearance, just the formula that was devised in 1966. Given the dysfunctional Congress we have today, however, it seems the concept is effectively dead anyway.
The second view holds that black participation in elections has reached the level of whites because of the protections afforded black citizens by the VRA. They argue that if the protections are removed those who want to suppress voting by blacks and other minorities will enact laws aimed at doing just that. Further, those laws, such as Texas' and Mississippi's voter ID requirements, will not be subject to clearance by the Justice Department. This may lead to a decline in black/minority participation in the electoral process in those states, advocates of the VRA claim. In essence, Jim Crow will once again thrive throughout the South.
I won't pretend to know who's right and who's wrong on this issue. What I do know is that both major political parties and their supporters try to suppress the vote for the other party's candidates in every election. Protections must be put in place to prevent majorities in power from manipulating the law to cement their own power at the expense of the minority. What the Court did yesterday is to take the burden of proof that changes to existing voting procedures would not disenfranchise black/minority voters away from the states and their legislatures. The burden of proof will now rest upon individuals, or groups of individuals, to prove that a law or procedural change has, in fact, disenfranchised them. States will henceforth be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Given the extreme difficulty (and expense) of proving voter suppression and/or disenfranchisement, it seems the Court has given states (and the majorities that control their legislatures) free reign when it comes to election law. My hope is that they will use this power to enhance the democratic process by making voting simpler and easier for all legal citizens. My fear is that they will not.
The first view is that because black participation in elections has increased to the level of whites, the Voting Rights Act is moot and no longer necessary. Or at least the part of it requiring any changes to voting procedures by the states subject to the law be given clearance by the Justice Department prior to implementation. That's what the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling issued by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on June 25, 2013. In Roberts' view, the states singled out by the 1965 law have changed. Racism and voter suppression efforts are a thing of the past. Thus, the formula determining which states are subject to the law is outdated and unnecessary. The Court did not strike down the concept of pre-clearance, just the formula that was devised in 1966. Given the dysfunctional Congress we have today, however, it seems the concept is effectively dead anyway.
The second view holds that black participation in elections has reached the level of whites because of the protections afforded black citizens by the VRA. They argue that if the protections are removed those who want to suppress voting by blacks and other minorities will enact laws aimed at doing just that. Further, those laws, such as Texas' and Mississippi's voter ID requirements, will not be subject to clearance by the Justice Department. This may lead to a decline in black/minority participation in the electoral process in those states, advocates of the VRA claim. In essence, Jim Crow will once again thrive throughout the South.
I won't pretend to know who's right and who's wrong on this issue. What I do know is that both major political parties and their supporters try to suppress the vote for the other party's candidates in every election. Protections must be put in place to prevent majorities in power from manipulating the law to cement their own power at the expense of the minority. What the Court did yesterday is to take the burden of proof that changes to existing voting procedures would not disenfranchise black/minority voters away from the states and their legislatures. The burden of proof will now rest upon individuals, or groups of individuals, to prove that a law or procedural change has, in fact, disenfranchised them. States will henceforth be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Given the extreme difficulty (and expense) of proving voter suppression and/or disenfranchisement, it seems the Court has given states (and the majorities that control their legislatures) free reign when it comes to election law. My hope is that they will use this power to enhance the democratic process by making voting simpler and easier for all legal citizens. My fear is that they will not.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Politics: It's as Dangerous as War...Battlestar Galactica Episodes 11-12
Episode 11 begins with the news that the fleet is running short on fuel. Commander Adama sends scouts out to look for asteroids laden with fuel that can be mined. What they locate is a Cylon base guarded by hundreds of Cylon Raiders. Adama once again finds himself making military command decisions and decides that a surprise attack on a superior force is what he needs to do. He chooses Starbuck to design the plan due to her unconventional thinking. Roslyn comes aboard Galactica and stands in as Starbuck lays out the battle plan. Roslyn approves and the battle is on. It seems detente between Adama and Roslyn has settled in.
Episode 12 is all about politics. Terrorist turned statesman Tom Zarek is named as a delegate to the council of 12 meeting with the president. He says that it is necessary to choose a VP in case of Roslyn's demise. Zarek is nominated by several delegates. Roslyn initially chooses a long time friend but when worried that Zarek may win she chooses Dr. Gaius Baltar. As the votes are counted Zarek takes a 6-5 lead over Baltar with one vote remaining. Afterwards, Adama and Roslyn share a drink and Adama says 'Politics. It's as dangerous as war.' Roslyn responds 'In war, you only die once. In politics, they kill you over and over.' Truer words were never spoken.
Episode 12 is all about politics. Terrorist turned statesman Tom Zarek is named as a delegate to the council of 12 meeting with the president. He says that it is necessary to choose a VP in case of Roslyn's demise. Zarek is nominated by several delegates. Roslyn initially chooses a long time friend but when worried that Zarek may win she chooses Dr. Gaius Baltar. As the votes are counted Zarek takes a 6-5 lead over Baltar with one vote remaining. Afterwards, Adama and Roslyn share a drink and Adama says 'Politics. It's as dangerous as war.' Roslyn responds 'In war, you only die once. In politics, they kill you over and over.' Truer words were never spoken.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
The Politics of Battlestar Galactica: Episodes 6-10
The tension between the civilian leadership (Roslyn) and the military leadership (Adama) continues to worsen. It is somewhat reminiscent of the relationship Harry Truman had with General Douglas MacArthur, though Adama has not outright disobeyed an order from the president yet.
Each side of the leadership is presented with several difficult challenges in these episodes. On the military side, one of Adama's top pilots has disappeared after an encounter with a Cylon raider. He dispatches a team to search for the pilot with no success. All the while, the president is getting antsy about the entire fleet being exposed to an imminent Cylon attack if they do not jump to a new location ASAP. Adama tells Roslyn that finding his pilot is a 'military decision' and she tells him that ensuring the survival of her people takes precedence over the life of a single pilot. Adama concedes her point and orders the fleet to prepare to jump.
As a feeling of safety and security begins to permeate the fleet, President Roslyn tells the people that Cylons have managed to infiltrate the fleet and now look human. Adama worries that this will lead to everyone suspecting everyone else, reminiscent of post 9/11 America and the fear that anyone among us could be a terrorist in deep cover.
As episode 9 opens Gaius Baltar is accused of aiding the Cylons to destroy the defense ministry just prior to the attack. The accusation is made by a copy of the number six model onboard Galactica, placing both Commander Adama and President Roslyn in a difficult situation as both have trusted Baltar and given him access to much data and equipment. Baltar maintains his innocence in meetings with both Adama and Roslyn. Adama hopes for Baltar's innocence but Roslyn's 'gut' tells her he is guilty. Baltar asks forgiveness for not wanting to be executed based on her gut feeling.
Episode 10 begins with the discovery of a Cylon saboteur who claims he has planted a nuclear warhead somewhere in the fleet. He is taken into custody and tortured by the military officer in charge of interrogating him, though he refuses to give up any information. President Roslyn arrives and asks what has been learned while expressing disgust over the military tactics. She apologizes for the torture, offers to grant him a pardon in exchange for the information about the bomb and offers peace. He admits the bomb is not real and tells Roslyn that Adama is a Cylon. Roslyn then orders him tossed out into space through the airlock. Roslyn has now taken control and, like Nixon, believes that being president makes her actions legal and beyond question. Justice is now determined by a single judge, President Roslyn.
Each side of the leadership is presented with several difficult challenges in these episodes. On the military side, one of Adama's top pilots has disappeared after an encounter with a Cylon raider. He dispatches a team to search for the pilot with no success. All the while, the president is getting antsy about the entire fleet being exposed to an imminent Cylon attack if they do not jump to a new location ASAP. Adama tells Roslyn that finding his pilot is a 'military decision' and she tells him that ensuring the survival of her people takes precedence over the life of a single pilot. Adama concedes her point and orders the fleet to prepare to jump.
As a feeling of safety and security begins to permeate the fleet, President Roslyn tells the people that Cylons have managed to infiltrate the fleet and now look human. Adama worries that this will lead to everyone suspecting everyone else, reminiscent of post 9/11 America and the fear that anyone among us could be a terrorist in deep cover.
As episode 9 opens Gaius Baltar is accused of aiding the Cylons to destroy the defense ministry just prior to the attack. The accusation is made by a copy of the number six model onboard Galactica, placing both Commander Adama and President Roslyn in a difficult situation as both have trusted Baltar and given him access to much data and equipment. Baltar maintains his innocence in meetings with both Adama and Roslyn. Adama hopes for Baltar's innocence but Roslyn's 'gut' tells her he is guilty. Baltar asks forgiveness for not wanting to be executed based on her gut feeling.
Episode 10 begins with the discovery of a Cylon saboteur who claims he has planted a nuclear warhead somewhere in the fleet. He is taken into custody and tortured by the military officer in charge of interrogating him, though he refuses to give up any information. President Roslyn arrives and asks what has been learned while expressing disgust over the military tactics. She apologizes for the torture, offers to grant him a pardon in exchange for the information about the bomb and offers peace. He admits the bomb is not real and tells Roslyn that Adama is a Cylon. Roslyn then orders him tossed out into space through the airlock. Roslyn has now taken control and, like Nixon, believes that being president makes her actions legal and beyond question. Justice is now determined by a single judge, President Roslyn.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The Politics of Galactica, Episodes 3-5
Episode 3: 33
The tensions between President Roslyn and the military continue to simmer. On more than one occasion Commander Adama refers to President Roslyn as a 'schoolteacher.' We see clearly a lack of respect for the political order (and politicians) as Adama believes the most important thing is winning the war (though he privately admits the war is over and humanity has lost). More importantly, the Cylon attack fleet arrives every 33 minutes so the entire fleet must 'jump' to a new location every 33 minutes. Until one of the civilian ships is left behind. Then the Cylons do not arrive. Both Adama and Roslyn agree that there must be some kind of tracker on the civilian ship that leads the Cylons to the fleet. When the ship fails to shut down its engines and remain at a safe distance from the fleet Roslyn is faced with her first major executive decision. Does she order the destruction of a ship with 1300 humans aboard or does she risk the entire fleet?
Episode 4: Water
After a saboteur destroys a large portion of Galactica's water reserve tanks, Adama sends pilots on a mission to locate water supplies for the fleet. At the same time, Roslyn is wrestling with the decision she made regarding the civilian ship and confides in Lee Adama (the commander's son) that leaders make decisions and often second guess themselves. Yet, even when they privately know a wrong decision was made they must stand by it in public. Roslyn is quickly developing the art of being a politician. Meanwhile, Commander Adama is stoic and resolute, saying that leaders make decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions, right or wrong.
Episode 5: Bastille Day
Needing labor to retrieve the water from the moon, Adama and Roslyn agree to use prisoners as their labor force. Adama sees them as criminals and slaves who can be ordered to do what he wants. Roslyn sees them as human beings with dignity and prefers persuasion to forced labor. One of the prisoners, Tom Zarek, an anti-government rebel organizes the prisoners to oppose the labor idea and begins a rebellion. Zarek demands the resignation of President Roslyn followed by free elections. Adama decides to storm the ship and take it back from the prisoners. Lee convinces Zarek to have the prisoners help retrieve the water in exchange for elections within a year and turning the ship over to the prisoners. Adama is angered by this and Roslyn at first expresses disdain until Lee reminds her that her term expires in 7 months. If Democracy means anything and she respects the rule of law she will honor the constitution of the now destroyed colonial government. Back on Galactica, Dr. Baltar, who is taking orders from Cylon number Six, tells Commander Adama that he can only build a Cylon detector if he has a nuclear warhead. Adama is taken aback at this but decides to give it to him without consulting President Roslyn. It seems we are always just one step away from a military coup.
The tensions between President Roslyn and the military continue to simmer. On more than one occasion Commander Adama refers to President Roslyn as a 'schoolteacher.' We see clearly a lack of respect for the political order (and politicians) as Adama believes the most important thing is winning the war (though he privately admits the war is over and humanity has lost). More importantly, the Cylon attack fleet arrives every 33 minutes so the entire fleet must 'jump' to a new location every 33 minutes. Until one of the civilian ships is left behind. Then the Cylons do not arrive. Both Adama and Roslyn agree that there must be some kind of tracker on the civilian ship that leads the Cylons to the fleet. When the ship fails to shut down its engines and remain at a safe distance from the fleet Roslyn is faced with her first major executive decision. Does she order the destruction of a ship with 1300 humans aboard or does she risk the entire fleet?
Episode 4: Water
After a saboteur destroys a large portion of Galactica's water reserve tanks, Adama sends pilots on a mission to locate water supplies for the fleet. At the same time, Roslyn is wrestling with the decision she made regarding the civilian ship and confides in Lee Adama (the commander's son) that leaders make decisions and often second guess themselves. Yet, even when they privately know a wrong decision was made they must stand by it in public. Roslyn is quickly developing the art of being a politician. Meanwhile, Commander Adama is stoic and resolute, saying that leaders make decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions, right or wrong.
Episode 5: Bastille Day
Needing labor to retrieve the water from the moon, Adama and Roslyn agree to use prisoners as their labor force. Adama sees them as criminals and slaves who can be ordered to do what he wants. Roslyn sees them as human beings with dignity and prefers persuasion to forced labor. One of the prisoners, Tom Zarek, an anti-government rebel organizes the prisoners to oppose the labor idea and begins a rebellion. Zarek demands the resignation of President Roslyn followed by free elections. Adama decides to storm the ship and take it back from the prisoners. Lee convinces Zarek to have the prisoners help retrieve the water in exchange for elections within a year and turning the ship over to the prisoners. Adama is angered by this and Roslyn at first expresses disdain until Lee reminds her that her term expires in 7 months. If Democracy means anything and she respects the rule of law she will honor the constitution of the now destroyed colonial government. Back on Galactica, Dr. Baltar, who is taking orders from Cylon number Six, tells Commander Adama that he can only build a Cylon detector if he has a nuclear warhead. Adama is taken aback at this but decides to give it to him without consulting President Roslyn. It seems we are always just one step away from a military coup.
Battlestar Galactica (2004): The Politics of Leadership
An interesting piece appeared on The Monkey Cage the other day by a former grad student colleague about the politics of Battlestar Galactica (2004). It got me to thinking how much I had enjoyed the show but never really paid much attention to executive decisionmaking portrayed in the series. So now I'm going back to watch all the episodes and plan to selectively blog about some of the highlights from a political science perspective. I'll try not to spoil the episodes for those who have not seen the series. For those who have, perhaps you'll see it from a different perspective.
Main Characters:
Battlestar Galactica: The Mini-Series (Episodes 1 & 2 on Netflix)
The series revolves around the ongoing war between the human created Cylons and their creators (an analogy to the war man has declared against God, according to some biblical expositors). One of the main characters, Commander William Adama, makes an allusion to this in his farewell address as the Battlestar Galactica is set to be decommissioned when he compares human beings to God.
The series begins with the arrival of Education Secretary Roslyn aboard Battlestar Galactica for the decommissioning ceremony. Commander Adama greets Secretary Roslyn and immediately lays down the ground rules...no networked computers aboard Galactica. We see this rule enforced again when his son, Captain Lee Adama, arrives and is instructed he must do a 'hands on' landing rather than an automated one, per the commander's orders. One of the themes we will see in the series is the recurring struggle between the leaders and those under their authority, much as we see in the political arena. Adama is a military leader so he is used to simply giving an order and expecting his subordinates to carry it out. Roslyn, on the other hand, is a political leader who must rely on skills such as persuasion and popularity to get things done, especially by those who disagree with her.
After a devastating Cylon attack on Caprica, everything changes. Laura Roslyn is sworn in as president on board Colonial 1 in a scene eerily familiar to when LBJ took office. Commander Adama decides to take control of the military fleet after the death of the admiral and an ensuing power struggle between military and civilian control begins. Roslyn must learn the art of persuasion while Adama must learn how to deal with challenges to his authority.
More next time....
Main Characters:
- Commander William Adama (Commander of the Battlestar Galactica)
- Laura Roslyn (Education Secretary, 43rd in line to the presidency)
- Gaius Baltar (philanderer, scientist, traitor)
- Number Six (one of the 12 models of human looking Cylons)
- Starbuck (Galactica's top fighter pilot)
Battlestar Galactica: The Mini-Series (Episodes 1 & 2 on Netflix)
The series revolves around the ongoing war between the human created Cylons and their creators (an analogy to the war man has declared against God, according to some biblical expositors). One of the main characters, Commander William Adama, makes an allusion to this in his farewell address as the Battlestar Galactica is set to be decommissioned when he compares human beings to God.
The series begins with the arrival of Education Secretary Roslyn aboard Battlestar Galactica for the decommissioning ceremony. Commander Adama greets Secretary Roslyn and immediately lays down the ground rules...no networked computers aboard Galactica. We see this rule enforced again when his son, Captain Lee Adama, arrives and is instructed he must do a 'hands on' landing rather than an automated one, per the commander's orders. One of the themes we will see in the series is the recurring struggle between the leaders and those under their authority, much as we see in the political arena. Adama is a military leader so he is used to simply giving an order and expecting his subordinates to carry it out. Roslyn, on the other hand, is a political leader who must rely on skills such as persuasion and popularity to get things done, especially by those who disagree with her.
After a devastating Cylon attack on Caprica, everything changes. Laura Roslyn is sworn in as president on board Colonial 1 in a scene eerily familiar to when LBJ took office. Commander Adama decides to take control of the military fleet after the death of the admiral and an ensuing power struggle between military and civilian control begins. Roslyn must learn the art of persuasion while Adama must learn how to deal with challenges to his authority.
More next time....
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Evolving Presidency of Barack Obama, Part I
The presidency, like life, is filled with a mixture of successes and
failures. Often times some of our worst failures lead to our greatest
successes. So it is with the presidency.
Americans often make the mistake of assuming the presidency is static rather than dynamic. They impute unrealistic expectations onto their president and act as if he, like Harry Potter, could wave his magic wand and utter the words of a spell that promises to solve whatever problem is at hand. Wishing does not, and never will, make it so.
Rather, the presidency is a dynamic institution larger than any one man could ever hope to be. Stephen Skowronek observed that every president must "...construe his place in history and stake claims to certain warrants for the exercise of power within it.[i] Some presidents do this exceptionally well and are remembered as great or nearly great. Others do it from time to time and have flashes of brilliance that fade into mediocrity. Yet, others never truly understand their place in history and are in turn forgotten by it. Why are presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan remembered so well while presidents like Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding are cast aside? Why did the former presidents overcome the limits of their institution while the latter presidents collapsed under the weight of it? Richard Neustadt’s observation that ‘presidential power is the power to persuade’ may indeed be relevant here.[ii]
Most presidents are typically well-known, successful individuals before they enter the presidency. Herbert Hoover was an engineer who performed humanitarian relief work, operated his own businesses, and served as Secretary of Commerce from 1921-29 before becoming president. Hoover even had a distinguished post presidential career. Yet, he is widely viewed as a failure as president, except, perhaps, by the late Archibald Bunker of the Bronx. Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a state senator from New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, and Governor of New York during the Great Depression prior to entering the White House. He was also disabled due to a bout with polio. The question must then be asked: Why did FDR succeed where Hoover failed?
Thousands upon thousands of books have been written to answer that question and I do not pretend to have a better answer than any of them. Nor will I endeavor to answer that question save to refer back to Skowronek’s earlier remark about the exercise of power within one’s place in history. Which brings me to the cause of my present musings. Namely, what is Barack Obama’s ‘place in history’? Will he successfully construe that place and exercise power in such a way that leaves a legacy or will he crash and burn like the many failed presidents before him? I do not intend to prognosticate about his place in history from a partisan or even policy based perspective because there is no doubt in my mind that each man sees what he wishes to see through his party tinted lenses. Rather, my goal is to examine the Obama Presidency through the lens of dynamic institutionalism. Every president must make a choice to either shape the institution in a manner fitting to his exercise of power or to allow himself to be shaped by that very institution. Here is where the story of the Obama Presidency begins. Over the next several posts I shall examine the first four years of Barack Obama’s presidency as well as the beginning of his second term and his prospects for creating a legacy of his own. I hope you’ll find it interesting.
Americans often make the mistake of assuming the presidency is static rather than dynamic. They impute unrealistic expectations onto their president and act as if he, like Harry Potter, could wave his magic wand and utter the words of a spell that promises to solve whatever problem is at hand. Wishing does not, and never will, make it so.
Rather, the presidency is a dynamic institution larger than any one man could ever hope to be. Stephen Skowronek observed that every president must "...construe his place in history and stake claims to certain warrants for the exercise of power within it.[i] Some presidents do this exceptionally well and are remembered as great or nearly great. Others do it from time to time and have flashes of brilliance that fade into mediocrity. Yet, others never truly understand their place in history and are in turn forgotten by it. Why are presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan remembered so well while presidents like Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding are cast aside? Why did the former presidents overcome the limits of their institution while the latter presidents collapsed under the weight of it? Richard Neustadt’s observation that ‘presidential power is the power to persuade’ may indeed be relevant here.[ii]
Most presidents are typically well-known, successful individuals before they enter the presidency. Herbert Hoover was an engineer who performed humanitarian relief work, operated his own businesses, and served as Secretary of Commerce from 1921-29 before becoming president. Hoover even had a distinguished post presidential career. Yet, he is widely viewed as a failure as president, except, perhaps, by the late Archibald Bunker of the Bronx. Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a state senator from New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, and Governor of New York during the Great Depression prior to entering the White House. He was also disabled due to a bout with polio. The question must then be asked: Why did FDR succeed where Hoover failed?
Thousands upon thousands of books have been written to answer that question and I do not pretend to have a better answer than any of them. Nor will I endeavor to answer that question save to refer back to Skowronek’s earlier remark about the exercise of power within one’s place in history. Which brings me to the cause of my present musings. Namely, what is Barack Obama’s ‘place in history’? Will he successfully construe that place and exercise power in such a way that leaves a legacy or will he crash and burn like the many failed presidents before him? I do not intend to prognosticate about his place in history from a partisan or even policy based perspective because there is no doubt in my mind that each man sees what he wishes to see through his party tinted lenses. Rather, my goal is to examine the Obama Presidency through the lens of dynamic institutionalism. Every president must make a choice to either shape the institution in a manner fitting to his exercise of power or to allow himself to be shaped by that very institution. Here is where the story of the Obama Presidency begins. Over the next several posts I shall examine the first four years of Barack Obama’s presidency as well as the beginning of his second term and his prospects for creating a legacy of his own. I hope you’ll find it interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)