The Republican Gamble: The Pitfalls of Refusing to Consider an Obama Nomination to Scalia's Seat

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

Justice Scalia’s death on Saturday, February 13^th set off a political earthquake, making what was already a very interesting presidential election year even more interesting.  And, as if our politics were not divided enough, Scalia’s death has set up a mega showdown between Republicans in the Senate and the President, and has raised the stakes of the presidential election.  Before Scalia’s body had turned cold, there were announcements on both sides regarding the next nomination.  The President stated that he will, of course, nominate someone in “due time”, while the Republican Senate leadership did not mince words in letting the President know that any nomination by him would in effect be a waste of time.  

It is understandable that Republicans, who are typically conservative in ideology, do not want to see a Democratic president put a third liberal on the bench.  Before Scalia’s death the conservative justices, those appointed by Republican presidents, totaled five and thus made up the majority of the justices, with the remaining four justices being those appointed by Democratic presidents and liberal leaning in ideology.  President Obama appointed two of those: Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.  The next appointment, if made by a Democratic President will tip the balance of the court in favor of the liberal point of view; but if made by a Republican president will maintain the current conservative majority makeup of 5 – 4, since Scalia was a loss on the conservative side.  Alas, the current president has the Constitutional authority to nominate a replacement, and the current president is a Democrat.  Thus the showdown and promised efforts by Republicans in the Senate to delay.

I would warn Republicans that the strategy of delay and deny is a gamble, and a gamble that is fraught with risk.  Here’s why:

Institutional Assumptions

Republicans are gambling on the hope that a Republican will win the election in November and take the White House in January of 2017, a time when they would rather see a nomination made and confirmed since it would be made by a Republican president.  They are also gambling on the hope they will maintain control of the Senate, which they only have control of by just a few seats.  Those are strong assumptions with no guarantee of coming to fruition.  The national electorate leans Democratic currently according to opinion polls that ask Americans to identify their party allegiance.  Second, Democrats have higher turnout in presidential election years than they do in the midterms.  Therefore, Democrats should not again feel the whipping they felt in 2014.  Also, the Electoral College outcome may favor the Democrats, which of course is largely determined by the popular vote and turnout in each individual state.  In 2012, Romney, the Republican candidate, only won two of the many swing states Obama had won in 2008.  Republicans would have to do much better in the swing states in 2016 to take back the White House.  If you look at the margin of victory in terms of the popular vote for President Obama in many of the swing states in 2012, a Republican victory seems a steep hill to climb.  As for the swing states in 2016, the Democratic candidate could lose Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, and still win with 285 electoral votes; 15 more than the 270 needed.

Then, of course, there is the Senate.  If Democrats win the presidential election, it is extremely likely they will gain seats in the Senate since a presidential win would mean a national mood in favor of Democrats.  They may even take back the Senate given the political reality facing Senate Republicans in November of this year.  In 2014, Democrats faced the challenge of maintaining their hold on seats in “red states” that lean Republican and conservative in their political and ideological makeup.  Given the heightened partisanship, this was a difficult challenge that, in the end, Democrats lost.  The Democrats lost enough seats to lose their majority hold on the Senate.  This year, however, will see a turning of the tables.  Most of the one-third of Senate seats up for election in November are held by Republicans, and enough of those are held in “blue states”.  Therefore, it is Republicans that may see losses this year.  Democrats only need to gain about four seats to take majority control of the Senate.  The final outcome may be the worst case scenario for Republicans: a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. 

Even a loss of one of these would undermine their hypothesis that it is better to delay a nomination until 2017.  A new Democratic president can still nominate a justice, and a Republican Senate that chose to delay in the previous term would not be able to continue with that strategy in the new term.  A win of only the Senate by Democrats, on the other hand, could allow President Obama a chance to rush in the appointment and get it confirmed by the new Senate that takes office the first week of January before his Republican successor is sworn in after mid-January.

The Electoral Risks

Then there are the electoral risks.  A Republican strategy to refuse to consider, hold hearing over, or vote on an Obama nomination for almost a year may undermine them at the polls this November.  This strategy would feed into the already existing narrative of Republicans as obstructionist and anti-Obama whatever the costs.  This narrative gained a great deal of momentum during the government shutdown in October of 2013.  A Republican political strategy that left the Supreme Court short one justice, and risked major decisions facing the Supreme Court to be decided by a lower appellate court would only remind voters of this narrative and feed it further.  Sure, the Republican base will be fine with this trade off of stopping Obama and a liberal agenda in exchange for the cost of leaving the seat vacant for a year or longer.  But it is not the Republican base that will tip the election one way or another.  It is moderates on both sides and independents.  This important group of voters are not willing to sacrifice the functioning of government for an ideological and political agenda.  They want government to function.  If it does not, they will likely blame Republicans and their strategy of delay and deny.  Because the electorate is so closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, it is crucial to win the moderates of both sides and the independents in order to win the election.  Not only does their support impact the chances of the Republican candidate winning the presidential election, it will likely impact the vote for the various Senate seats that Republicans will be defending in November of 2016, especially those in the left leaning states.

A Safer Option, but a Risk Nonetheless

Actually working with President Obama may be a better option for two reasons.  However, the trade-off for working with the president is to upset the base.  As a result, Republicans may choose to wait until the day after the election to end the opposition-laced rhetoric and beginning considering an Obama nomination.  Of course, if they keep the Senate and win the White House they will simply wait out the president.  Unfortunately for Republicans, however, they cannot see into the future.  Therefore, a wait and see approach still means they are taking the electoral gamble of turning out moderates and independents against them, which will fulfill the very prophecy they are seeking to avoid.  Therefore, this electoral risk is the first reason they should consider coming to the table before the election.  The second reason involves the justice they are likely to end up with.

If the President wants to replace Scalia before the end of his term he will have to go with a consensus nominee that Republicans will agree to, or have agreed to in the past (a justice on a lower federal court bench).  This means that a justice that is too far left is not an option for the President.  He will have to go with a moderate, much like George W. Bush had to when he chose John Roberts for the Chief Justice position.  If, however, Republicans refuse to consider a nominee and Democrats have a victory in November, one of two things may happen.  Either President Obama will rush through an appointment in January if Democrats have the Senate but not the White House; or, a new Democratic president will make the nomination.  The worst case scenario facing Republicans, as stated above, is a Democratic Senate and White House.  In two of these three scenarios, the nominee is likely to be further to the left than Republicans would have gotten under Obama if the nomination had been made before November.  If Democrats can make an appointment without facing significant opposition from Republicans, they have the flexibility to nominate a much more liberal candidate than President Obama would under his current constraints. 

It may be the President holding the right cards in this one.  If that’s the case, then he will just let Republicans do what they are going to do.  Either way, he may win in the end.

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

The Reason for the Discontent between the White House and the Israeli Government

Source: BBC News

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe with your email to receive notices of future articles and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!  

The reason for the discontent between the White House and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel is not related to personality or any competition for power and influence. The contention has to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and much of it is a result of the continuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which remains occupied by Israel since the 1967 June War.  For decades the U.S. has played a vital role in attempts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  Every attempt at brokering peace has been followed by Israeli actions that undercut any efforts at peace in the long term.  This article is not about the mistakes of Palestinian leadership or the efforts of some Palestinian groups to undercut the peace process that would entail the acknowledgement of a permanent Israeli state. Neither is this article an effort to criticize justifiable Israeli reactions to attacks of terror on its people, or to criticize measures taken by the Israeli government to prevent or deter such attacks.  The discussion of settlements has very little, and perhaps nothing to do with the vital security needs of Israel.  In the context of peace negotiations, the settlements are a separate issue from the security argument, although the Israeli settlements themselves have indeed contributed to the need for greater security.  The settlements in the West Bank must be defended which increases Israeli security demands, a need created by Israelis, and at the same time foster greater anger on the part of Palestinians towards Israel.  I say that the settlements are not part of the security argument in the context of peace negotiations because Israel's security should be about securing Israel's borders and not settlements that were unnecessarily erected outside of Israel's borders, and which, instead of contributing to Israel's security, detract from it.

Origin and Location of the Settlements

Source: BBC News

In June of 1967, after only six days of fighting, Israel emerged victorious from a war with its neighboring Arab countries  who were resentful of Israel's creation in 1949.  The spoils of war gained by Israel were territories formally in the borders of those Arab states.  These territories included the West Bank, gained from Jordan; the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, gained from Egypt; and the Golan Heights, gained from Syria.  Today, Israel still occupies the West Bank, a territory which is the home of a substantial number of Palestinians, many of which live in refugee camps erected to house those that fled the 1949 Israeli Independence War.

Shortly after the war, the Israeli government began a policy of encouraging Israelis and Jews emigrating to the area to settle in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip settlements, which were fewer in number, have since been dismantled and the territory handed over to the Palestinians.  The occupation and settling of Israelis in the West Bank has continued to this day and with the financial encouragement of the Israeli government through subsidies.

Settlements as Barriers to Peace

The reasons the Israeli settlements are a barrier to peace are multiple.  First, the settlements are a de facto method of expanding Israel's borders into Palestinian land.  While Israel has not formally annexed the West Bank, as it did East Jerusalem, Israel has allowed and encouraged the settlement of its own people outside its official borders and into a land that Israel occupies.  This is in violation of international norms and international law that says a country must not attempt to transplant its own native population into a country or territory in which it is occupying as a result of war.  The settlement activity of the Israelis has deeply angered Palestinians who believe even more of their land is being taken by Israel and left them feeling hopeless in their dreams of statehood.  

Second, a "two-state solution" has been essential to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or at least that has been the goal of peace brokers for the past several decades.  The "two-state solution" would mean the continuation of the state of Israel, but also the creation of a new Palestinian state, most likely out of the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  The settlements that have only grown since 1967 are increasingly making a Palestinian state impossible.  As can be seen in the map, the settlements, many of which resemble small cities with permanent structures, vary in size and are spread out across the West Bank.  The largest of course, the settlement blocks, are closer to the Western side, near and stemming out from the border between Israel and the West Bank.  Neither the Israeli government or the Israelis and Jews living in the settlements are willing to dismantle them.  For the most part, recent peace negotiations have kept the Israeli settlements intact.  If they are to stay intact and under Israeli control, the supposed Palestinian state that would be the end result of a peace agreement would be a nonviable state, with non-contiguous borders in some areas, that resembles more a slice of Swiss cheese than an actual country.  This can be seen in the graphic to the left which was a map created during the Oslo peace negotiations.

U.S. and International Frustration with Israel

Rather than freezing settlement building, which only serves to increase Palestinian and Arab anger , as well as increase the difficulty of offering Palestinians a viable state, Israel has continued to expand the settlements in the West Bank.  This has angered the international community, but especially the U.S. which has invested quite a bit of credibility, effort, money, time, and political capital into bringing peace to the region.  Also, recall that a great deal of Islamic terrorism perpetrated against the U.S. is a result of anger at the U.S. for supporting, or at least not stopping, Israeli actions deemed as harmful to Palestinians.  Therefore, the U.S. has a significant amount of "skin in the game".  

President Bill Clinton at Camp David in 2000 with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (left) and leader of the Palestinian Authority Yasir Arafat (right)

Source: The Washington Post

Despite immense U.S. efforts to help the Israelis and Palestinians to end the fighting and the enormous aid given to Israel, the settlements have continued, as has the support of the Israeli government, both in rhetoric and in financial subsidy.  This has been quite a slap in the face of the U.S.   Recall that there have been several attempts to bring both sides to the table.  The only two attempts that had promise of producing a tangible result were the peace negotiations in Oslo, Norway in 1993, and the efforts of President Bill Clinton in 2000, known as "Camp David II". The previous Camp David peace effort under President Jimmy Carter, did not deal with the Palestinian issue, but did resolve the conflict between Israel and Egypt.  Since Camp David II, both Presidents George W. Bush (remember the "Road Map to Peace") and Barack Obama have sought to kick start negotiations, but to no avail.  The sides to the conflict seem to be too far apart, partly due to the settlements.  Also, as can be seen in the graphic, the settlements have only expanded, and in so doing have significantly decreased any possibility of peace and a Palestinian State, the main component of the "Two-State Solution".  Every year the settlements become even more permanent fixtures of Israeli dominance in the West Bank.  

The goal of the U.S. to bring peace in the region is an important one considering the enormous suffering of Jews historically, the suffering currently endured by both Israelis and Palestinians, the long friendship between Israel and the U.S., and the immense anger in the Arab world towards Israel and towards the U.S. as the main supporter of Israel.  Therefore, it comes as no shock to long time observers and students of this conflict that the frustration of U.S. administrations has built up and is no longer contained behind the scenes.  To ignore the role of Israel and only chastise Palestinians is a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians, especially the thousands that have died and will continue to die in the absence of peace.

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

The Exaggeration of the Repudiation of President Barack Obama: Analysis of the 2014 Midterm Election Results

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

The Results of the 2014 Midterm Elections

In a nutshell, Republicans did well.  Well enough in fact in key Senate races that they took control of the Senate, gaining at least 6 seats to become the majority party in that chamber.  As of Wednesday, November 5, the Senate is poised to consist of 2 independents, 44 Democrats and 52 Republicans for the next two years beginning January 2015.  There are a couple of races still to be decided in both the Senate and the House, so Republican gains may increase by a few more seats.  In the House of Representatives, Republicans also gained seats.  Republicans will increase their seats from 233 to 243 seats in the House in January, maybe more.  As for the 36 Governor races across the country, Republicans saw gains as well.  With the exception of Pennsylvania, Republicans increased their number of states with Republican governors.  Pennsylvania is the only state that was previously held by a Republican governor and saw the Democrat win the election instead.

The Analysis: A Repudiation of President Obama?

The day after the election, the partisans, pundits and surrogates quickly offered their analysis of the election outcome.  Since Republicans gained seats and Democrats lost seats, the common conclusion became that Democratic losses were a repudiation of President Obama.  Pundits, including Political Science folks like myself, and partisans who make this claim are forming an analysis that assumes government is composed of solely the president, intentional or their part or not.  As overly focused on the president as the American people are, they still see government itself as composed not just of a president, but as being run by two opposing political parties.  Could some voters have been upset with policy choices of President Obama when they went to the polls?  Yes, of course this is true of Republicans, and this is also most likely true of some independents.  However, I argue that claims of the election results as signifying a voter repudiation of President Obama are not completely false, but are greatly exaggerated.  The media, this includes pundits, political talk show hosts, and newspaper op-ed writers, has over dramatized and over simplified the outcome of the election.  To discuss the results with reference to the complexity of the American political system, American politics, and the era of polarization would seem to lose viewers and readers.  The path of least resistance is to oversimplify, over dramatize, and focus on the figure in the government that viewers are most familiar with and curious about.

Why the 2014 Election Results Are NOT a Repudiation of Obama

There are multiple reasons, most of which are firmly based in sound political science theories, as to why viewing the Republican gains as a voter repudiation of the Democratic president are naive.

1.  If 2014 is a repudiation of President Obama, 2010 should be as well. 

And for that matter, shouldn't 2012 be one too?  But that doesn't work because President Obama received a majority of the popular vote and electoral votes, thus winning re-election.  If voters were repudiating Barack Obama in 2010 and in 2014, but loved him in between in 2012, they sure are finicky in their feelings towards the President.  Those that claim the Republican gains of 2014 are a signal of opposition to the policies of President Obama should make the same claim about 2010.  In 2010 Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate and Democrats lost seats in both chambers, resulting in Republicans taking back the House of Representatives from Democrats who had won control in 2006.  While Republicans won seats in the Senate in 2010 as well, unseating a few Democratic incumbents such as Russ Feingold, they did not win enough to get the majority of 51 or greater to take control of that chamber.  Nonetheless, 2010 was a huge victory for the Republican party and a huge loss for the Democratic party.  Democrats had emerged the victors in the previous two federal elections, 2006 and 2008, taking control of Congress from the Republicans who had held it since the 1994 elections.  Therefore, following the logic of the post-election pundits and partisans, 2010 must have been a repudiation of President Obama who had been elected in 2008.  Not so fast.  If that were the case, then why did voters overwhelmingly re-elect President Obama just two years later in 2012?  Obama saw only a slight increase in his approval rating from 2010 to 2012, so this cannot be explained by any significant increase in voter love of the president.  Yes, President Obama's approval leading up to the election was in the low 40s in terms of percent "approve", but most of that disapproval comes from Republican voters while only a small fraction of it comes from independents who would cause his number to go above or below 50%.  The loss of some independents in approval does not all by itself cause a loss for Democrats in general.  When independents were voting this election in states where their votes predict the outcome, they were largely voting against the party in power, rather than against Barack Obama.  President Obama's approval ratings did dip before the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections and rose to as high as 52% before the 2012 Presidential election in which he won re-election; however, correlation is NOT causation.  Approval ratings of the president can in fact reflect the feelings of the voters regarding the party in power as a whole (see point #2 below).  I argue that 2014 was no more a repudiation of President Obama than 2010 was.  In fact, the role of President Obama in predicting the outcome of those midterm elections was minimal.  The explanation lies more in voter perception of the party in control, rather than voter feelings regarding one individual in control.  There is limit to the logic that votes against non-Obama Democrats are solely a judgement on President Obama.  Link: Gallup Approval Ratings of President Obama

2.  Political science theories

The Electoral Reward and Punishment Model.  This model purports that voters either reward or punish the party they believe is currently in control of government.  If things are going well for most voters (mainly independents), they will reward the party in power.  If things are not going well for voters, again we are really only talking about independents, then they punish the party in power. I isolate this factor to independents only because voters have become very partisan in the polarized political environment we are now in.  Therefore, Republican voters will vote for Republican candidates and Democratic voters will vote Democratic regardless of conditions.  This is going to be the case for the vast majority of partisan voters, unless their is a major event or circumstance of a level that would cause some partisans to switch sides temporarily.  Therefore, independents who do not stick with one party, will base their decision largely on how they perceive the country is doing, and which party they believe is in control of government at that time.  Since Democrats were in control of government (Congress and the Presidency) from 2009 to the end of 2010, voter assessment was of the Democratic party in November 2010.  After Republican victories in November 2010, government consisted of a Republican controlled House, but a Democratic controlled Senate and Presidency. The resulting perception remained that Democrats control government.  Voters are not complex in their assessment of government control.  There is not much appreciation for the fact that opposition party control of one chamber significantly hampers the ability of the other party to take action and have legislative successes despite having control of the other chamber and the White House.  A bill must pass in both chambers to go to the President's desk for signing into law.

Partisans, pundits and news talk show hosts are claiming that the Democratic loss in November is more specifically a repudiation of Obama's policies.  Again, this is oversimplifying the results and neglecting key facts.  First, the president's policies are liberal and are that of his party.  Much like Bush's policies were conservative and hawkish, also similar to the policies of the Republican party at the time.  This does not mean there aren't some important divisions within the party, but the policies are pretty consistent overall between the president and his party.  Second, voters do not necessarily prefer conservative (Republican) policies over liberal (Democratic) policies.  It must be restated that Democrats are liberal and will vote with Democrats, while Republicans are conservative and will vote with Republicans.  Therefore, the voters that I am largely referring to are the small slice of the electorate that does not identify with a particular party.  It is these voters that decide the outcome of many elections in which Democratic and Republican voters are evenly matched.  If independents preferred one ideology over the other, than why do they seem to jump back and forth so frequently?  The move from one party to the other is solely an assessment of current conditions, and not an assessment of an ideology and its policies.  If voters are unhappy with the current state of things, such as the state of the economy, foreign affairs, income levels, or government action, they will "throw the scoundrels out", or punish them, and give the other party a chance.  If things do not improve, they will throw that party out, and go back to the other party since America is a two-party system and there is really no other choice but that one.

In 2002 and 2004 Republicans did well because Americans were rallied behind their government as a result of the September 11th attacks, giving government much of the benefit of the doubt.  The economy was doing well and Americans perceived that the government was taking action to deal with the threat.  Therefore Republicans, the party in power during running up to both of those elections (Republicans had control of Congress since 1994 and the White House since the 2000 election) they were rewarded.  In 2006, Republicans were punished as voters were unhappy with the lack of progress in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly feeling that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, concerned and saddened by the frequent news of soldier deaths and IED maiming, and dismayed at the federal governments lack of adequate response to conditions in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and a doubling of the national debt over the Bush years and years of Republican control of Congress.  Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006.  By 2008, things had only gotten worse with the Great Recession of 2008.  The 2008 Presidential election was a further punishment of Republicans in Congress and in the White House as Democrats increased their numbers and won the White House over the Republican candidate. Voters still blamed Republicans who were seen as being in control for much of the time period leading up to 2008.  Two years later, with a Democratic president and a Congress that had been controlled by Democrats for four years, the voters handed out another punishment, this time to the Democrats.  The economy had not improved.  Democrats lost seats in both chambers in the 2010 midterm elections, resulting in their loss of the House to Republicans.  By the 2012 Presidential election, the economy had begun improving, which meant that voters would reward the party perceived to be in power.  This party was the Democrats as they control two of the three seats of power, the White House and the Senate.  However, by 2014, government dysfunction was the problem of the moment.  Since 2010, voters were witnessing a government that was increasingly gridlocked and unable to adequately respond to national concerns such as the growing income inequality gap and pass basic laws dealing in topics with elements that Americans agreed on. 

The President's party, whether Republican or Democrat, typically loses seats in the midterm election.  Historically, this has even been the case when the sitting president during the midterm election cycle had an approval rating above 50%, sometimes well above.  It just follows that a determination by voters about the effectiveness or competence of who is in control of government will drag down those officials, including the president, of the party in control.  Midterm elections are more difficult for the President's party because they are going to lose a number of seats that were gained when the party could ride the presidential coattails of the popular, and thus winning, presidential party nominee during the previous presidential election.  While feeling about a president should not completely be neglected in a midterm analysis, it should be recognized that voter satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a president is only one variable and not explain most or all of the votes for the other party. 

3. The map favored Republicans in 2014 for Senate, but may favor Democrats in 2016

The overwhelming majority of states that had Senate seats up for grabs were red conservative states where Republican voters tend to outnumber conservative voters.  Some of these states were gains for Republicans because in the mass anti-Republican waves of 2006 and 2008 a moderate Democrat was able to grab the independent vote and win the state.  This was bound to be undone as conditions returned to normal and the conservative state voted in a way that more reflected the ideological leaning of the state and as conditions were not what voters wanted leading to the loss of those independents to the Republican party.  In fact, over time, these states are appearing to get even redder.  Only the Republican wins in Blue states are significant supporting arguments for a Democratic punishment year.  Most of the states in the midsection of the country and the South were states with Senate elections this year.  Senate elections stretched from Montana down through the plains states to Texas and then across the deep South.  Link: 270towin.com Senate election map

4.  Turnout among Democrats is lower in midterm elections

The Democratic party has a higher proportion of minorities, youth, and single women.  These groups tend to have lower education and lower income rates, which means they have lower probabilities of voting.  The voter turnout rate among all eligible voters drops from 50-65% in a Presidential election to under 50%, sometimes as low as 40% in a midterm election when the presidency is not on the ballot.  Therefore, Democrats are hurt significantly in voter turnout in midterm elections.  This explains why they can do well in a presidential but not well in a midterm election when there is not a major event such as a recession or 9/11 driving voting behavior.  Republican voters are overall wealthier and white, which means they have higher voter turnout rates due to higher percentages of high income earners and higher education rates.  These are the voters that show up for presidential and midterm elections.  The Democratic party is more diverse, but with that diversity comes groups with historically lower voter turnout rates.  This in addition to the fact that the map favored Republicans in the Senate should not be so easily neglected by pundits and hosts since the removal of these two variables may have meant only a modest gain for Republicans, and perhaps falling short of picking up a majority in the Senate. 

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

 

Stop Playing Their Game

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

What game?

The game I am speaking of is the partisan and divisive game used by many politicians, candidates, and polarizing news radio or television pundits.  It is the game of manipulation.  The game of manipulation is designed to gain your attention and to then gain influence over your opinion.  I am talking about the politicians in your party, especially the "celebrity" types, as well as the television and radio news hosts you listen to, all of whom find a way to be the loudest mouth in the national conversation.  DO NOT assume that I am only talking about the other party, the other shows, or the other politicians.  I am talking about the politicians in your party, especially the "celebrity" types, as well as the television and radio news hosts you listen to, all of whom find a way to be the loudest mouth in the national conversation. 

What are the methods of play?

These divisive and polarizing figures take the path of least resistance.  On one hand, this entails "dumbing us down" with overly simplified, overly broad, misleading and sometimes downright untruthful statements.  These characters do not get your vote or attention unless you are filled with rage or passion; but more importantly, they do not get your attention unless they reduce complex arguments down to a "bumper sticker sized"statement.  Bumper sticker sized statements, sometimes referred to as "sound bites" are better tools of manipulation than complex discussions or nuanced statements.  Bumper sticker statements and sound bites convey a minimal amount of information that is devoid of context.  To include context in a statement, would lead to facts that do not support the statement or opinion, and would also lead you to believe that the world is a bit more complex than the speaker would like you to believe.  Context and fact may also lead you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else.  For some politicians, partisans and ideologically extreme media characters, educating you in historical fact, statistics and context would be counter-productive to their effort to hold your attention and counter-productive to their policy goals.  

The second method of play is distraction.  The game's objective is not to have analytically and substantive discussions or statements about meaningful action and policy, but to prevent us by distraction from coming to our own conclusions using critical thinking skills.  One such "shiny object" used for the sake of distraction every summer is the vacation taken by the President.    Another such shiny object is the attendance at a fundraising event by the President.  Most of these shiny objects are brought to us by a steady barrage of pictures and video clips of Presidential activities.

Example...don't worry...it's non-partisan ;)

Every president, Republican or Democrat, goes on vacations, some extended  and some short; and every president, Republican or Democrat attends fundraising events all over the country.  Much of the time, these trips occur shortly before, during, or after a major news event.  For President Obama it has been the recent August vacation and golf outing in the midst of the growing ISIS threat and beheading of journalist James Foley.  President Obama also received some flack for neglecting to visit Ferguson, Missouri during the civil disorder related to the police shooting of Michael Brown.  For President Bush, the most resilient memory Americans have of a bad photo op is his 2005 fly over of the damage in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.  Another memory of the Bush administration is the great deal of