Closing Thoughts on Religion and the American Presidency

While we have examined the role of religion in the American presidency throughout the semester, we have not examined the opinions of those who are critical of its influence as closely as we could have. In a recent piece on Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens defends his decision not to support candidates based on their religious beliefs. The article can be found at http://www.slate.com/id/2180159

You would think by now that I would have learned how to link websites. Good luck on today's exam.

Similar Situations for Romney and Clinton

Both Romney and Clinton, who once held dominant leads in Iowa, find themselves behind in the polls. Articles are now out for Romney and Clinton about how they aren't going down easily. Both have been resorting to attacks. Romney's most recent attack is an accusation that Huckabee is Un-Republican:

"I can't believe he'd say that," Romney said to a gathering of about 100 supporters in a restaurant here. "I had to look again—did this come from Barack Obama or from Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards? No, it was Governor Huckabee."

Clinton has been using the accusation mentioned in class that Obama does not have enough experience to be president. How well these tactics work is still to be seen. The other campaigns may still have dirt on Huckabee that hasn't been revealed and the full extent of Oprah's influence on Obama's campaign is yet to be seen.

Huckabee uses his newfound platform

Recently Mike Huckabee wrote an article for Foreign Affairs criticizing Bush's foreign policy activities. (I read about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/us/politics/15cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin). I think this is a clever use of the increased attention he now gets from gaining in the polls. For him to so strongly criticize Bush's policies doubles as both a tool for increased attention and a way of presenting himself as independent from an unpopular President. I also must give him credit for finding what I believe is the greatest fault in our current foreign policy: arrogance or the appearance of arrogance.


Another interesting thing highlighted in the article brings us back to Alinsky:

Mr. Huckabee’s article was seized on by Mitt Romney’s campaign, which has been criticizing him for his recent joke on Don Imus’s radio show, in which he said, “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.”

While I'm not normally a Huckabee fan, I have to give him credit for using humor as Alinsky suggests people should do. The ad he references is in the experience of anyone who has watched a TV in the last few years.

Schwarzenegger's "Fiscal Emergency"

Governor Schwarzenegger plans to use the authority granted by the passage of Prop. 58 in 2004 to declare a state of "fiscal emergency" in January, which will call a special session of the Legislature.

If lawmakers fail to send the governor legislation addressing the budget problem within 45 days, they cannot take action on any other bills or adjourn until they do so.

More on Huckabee and Delegates

I mentioned the possibility of Gov. Mike Huckabee winning a large number of states but not the Republican nomination in class on Wednesday.  The math looks something like this:

States where Huckabee is currently leading or demographics favor him include these 15 for a total of 687 delegates:

NC (69), IA (41), SC (47), NV (34), AL (48), AK (54), GA (72), TN (55), WV (30), LA (47), KA (39), OK (41), NB (33), KY (45) and IN (32)

Guiliani can put up more delegates (735) with just eight states that he has a good chance at winning:

FL (114), CA (173), NJ (52), NY (101), OH (88), VA (63), IL (70) and  PA (74)

While this certainly doesn't account for all the states that either candidate could win, it is a pretty good prediction of what this race could look like if Huckabee continues to do well.  This race might come down to the great state of Texas and its 140 delegates if anyone wants to get the necessary 1,259 delegates to secure the nomination.  Guiliani once enjoyed a larger lead, but recent polls show his lead reduced to single digits in Texas.

Alinsky Tactics By Obama

We talked again in class today about the influence of Alinsky on current political campaigns.

I was just reviewing some of the earlier sections of the Alinsky reading and found some more tactics that Obama is using. 

One of the huge focus of the LA event was on how the problems of the working class and the other "Have-Nots" are every Americans problem. This concept is direct from Alinsky. Neither Obama or his supporters ever said that there was a moral obligation, or reason for these other people's problems to matter to us --- instead they said that it was in our best interest to fight for them. Alinsky talks about how men help other men because it is in their own best interests. 

Another tactic that is used in many campaigns is to use vague, general goals. Obama is fighting for "change" and embodies "hope." Very simple. There are not many who would argue that America needs change or hope. Also, he campaigns with a sense of optimism for the country. Sometimes this is what makes him seem inexperienced. However, Alinsky states that his personal philosophy "is anchored in optimism. It must be, for optimism brings with it hope, a future with purpose, and therefore, a will to fight for a better world." Obama is consistent in his use of even just the word "hope" and uses it to motivate people to elect him and help him create "a better world."

Also, there was a comment to my last post about the speeches. It was mentioned that there was a lot more Bush administration bashing than was expected. Alinsky says that the "enemy" must be 100% evil and the revolutionist must be 100% justified. Constant attacks and jokes about the current administration are working to paint that purely bad image of the Bush, the status quo. 

More Bad Press for Huckabee

Huckabee recently made the mistake of asking in a New York Times Magazine interview, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" He has now apologized for the comment, saying that he never expected it to be printed.
To add to the religious Huckabee news, his campaign is not going to make his sermons available to the media. Huckabee is lacking in favorable press coverage lately and it will be interesting to see how much it hurts him.

Obama and Drugs, continued

Once more, our class is on the cutting edge of societal evolution. As soon as we talk about Obama's long-ago drug use, and Brian blogs about it below, it becomes a campaign issue.

Presidential Candidates and Marijuana

Earlier in class today we discussed Obama and how as a teen he experimented with marijuana and cocaine. I found a link to where he admits to an audience that he has smoked weed and inhaled. This is part of a growing trend. If you watch this video, you can see how marijuana has been hurtful to candidates in the past, and how candidates are hesitant to answer honestly and upfront. Bill Clinton said that he experimented with marijuana a couple times but "never inhaled" and never liked it.
Obama has worked hard to earn that aura of trust and hope that surrounds his candidacy. However, this honesty is not received warmly by all Americans. Romney says that Obama should not be as upfront about what he has done wrong in the past, because he is a role model and should not talk in great detail about his past indiscretions. I just find it funny that even honesty can be debated in American politics.

Question on Romney's Religious Test

Not to belabor the point, but I think we all would agree that Mitt Romney is no Jack Kennedy. For Romney, a claim to secularism would be political suicide.

Yet, we are a secular country.
SO: Why did Romney never publicly questioned his church's racicist practices, particularly the policy that excluded blacks from full membership? (that policy ended in 1978.) Why the silence?

Bill Clinton had to explain his membership re: exclusive country clubs. What about Romney?

A Political Ad that Actually Says Something

I had just posted a comment about the Huckabee and Romney ads when I came across this ad that Senator Joe Biden is running in Iowa. It may not have music and vagueness that most other political ads have currently, but it actually has a message. You may not like Biden for some of his past actions (I know I have major issues with some of the things he has said and done in the past), but you have to admire him at least somewhat for running a campaign based on what he has accomplished. Instead saying words like "strong" or "leadership" and not having any real substance in his ad, Biden gives you a way to see what he has done. The ad cannot possibly help Biden enough to come close to winning any primaries, but I found it a nice change from the other ads I have seen.

Romney Doesn't Really Heart Huckabee

We talked in class about increasing attacks on Huckabee due to his lead in the Iowa polls. Here's a Romney ad attacking Huckabee on immigration. Huckabee also released a new ad emphasizing his tough stance on immigration. Each wants to prove that he is the authentic conservative. I think that it's interesting that they both emphasize their conservatism instead of their candidacy for the Republican party. Perhaps they do this because of the negative associations that many Americans have with the Republican party and the Bush administration. Do you think that these ads are effective? Will the Democrats also create more attack ads against each other as primaries near?

What Would Strunk, White, and Alinsky Say?

Here is a real email from a Clinton campaign aide. How many different political and stylistic mistakes did Mr. Nash make here? Discuss.

From: Bob Nash
To:
Sent: Sun Dec 09
Subject: BARACK

HOW ARE YOU ?? I AM FIGHTING HARD >
SECOND ARE YOU PEERSONALLYAWARE OF TH EWORK BARACK DID ON THE SOUTHSIDE WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION S , ETC ./. BOB
WHAT DI DHE DO AFORE HOW LONG AND WITH WHO ??
PLS TELL BOB HELLO BOB

Bob J Nash
Deputy Campaign Manager
Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee
4420 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203

Obama in LA

I just got back from the Gibson Amphitheater where Barack Obama spoke and various famous people pledged their support (including musical highlights by Ne-yo and The Goo Goo Dolls). He structured the event by having various testimonials about the hope he has brought and the belief that his supporters have in his ability to lead the country. I know that we talked today about the experience factor that could hurt Obama's campaign. His supporters definitely pushed this tonight, emphasizing that while Obama does not have the experience Washington wants, he has the experience America needs to see change. Obama and his supporters also tried to emphasize his appeal to all types of voters and his goal of unity among Americans.

They also spoke about closing gaps in polling results for many of the upcoming state primaries. They are rallying volunteers to go to Vegas to knock on doors and make calls to bring Nevada over to Obama. By their numbers he has recently gone from 22 points behind, to only 8. 

...Just as a side, more humorous note (and something that was flippantly brought up in class today), Obama mentioned his ancestral ties to Cheney. He joked about it and said it was embarrasing. I have a video clip that I've put on YouTube for this class's viewing pleasure -- it doesn't seem to have gone into the general database yet, so you can find it on my page...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Words10

Hopefully that works...the part about Cheney is from about :58-1:33. If you listen to the end, you'll hear a more important, but less humorous part of his speech where he basically summarizes a lot of the problems he has been addressing in his campaign. 

Anyway, there were a lot of press at the event and it will be interesting to see what takes they all have on it. I haven't found any up yet...it only ended about two hours ago...but definitely check them out. 

Penultimate Notes

As we contemplate the American future, a couple of recent stories are relevant to our discussion of Huntington.

From the Pew Hispanic Center:

Nearly all Hispanic adults born in the United States of immigrant parents report they are fluent in English. By contrast, only a small minority of their parents describe themselves as skilled English speakers. This finding of a dramatic increase in English-language ability from one generation of Hispanics to the next emerges from a new analysis of six Pew Hispanic Center surveys conducted this decade among a total of more than 14,000 Latino adults.

From the Center for Immigration Studies:

Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal. Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

As the Iowa caucuses draw near, we see the Alinsky influence in the Democratic frontrunners. From The Forward:

When Clinton told [her undergraduate advisor] she wanted to write her thesis on poverty issues, Schechter suggested she study Alinsky’s work, in part because she was able to personally interview the organizer, who was based near her hometown in Chicago. (Fifteen years later, Clinton’s chief Democratic rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, would become a community activist in Chicago, in the organizing tradition of Alinsky.) Clinton writes in the notes of her thesis that after meeting three times with Alinsky, he offered her a job, which she declined in favor of “legal rigor” at Yale.

Finally, a bit of presidential lore:

A teenager from Iceland claims that he reached a private White House phone line while pretending to be the president of his country. If so, he would not be the first ordinary person to get through. On May 14, 1965, a Denver couple accidentally interrupted a call between LBJ and Abe Fortas. Story and audio here.

Destruction of CIA Tapes

Recently there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the CIA. The CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of videotapes that showed the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, two high level Al Qaeda operatives captured early on. Many Democrats have come out strongly against it. Ted Kennedy even said that “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18½ -minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon." The CIA argues that it acted legally, and that they destroyed the tapes "to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value." Once the investigations begin, we will see for ourselves what really happened. In the mean time, it brings up a bigger question, one posed by the New York Times: how is it possible to run a secret spy service within a democracy.

Tax Refund Trouble

Following up on our earlier discussion of tax policy, there was an article in the December 10^th edition of Newsweek discussing how 13 million tax refunds may be delayed.

The disagreement in Congress comes over the alternative minimum tax, “which raises taxes on people with high deductions relative to their incomes.” Because the tax hasn’t been altered to compensate for inflation, it would affect 2/3 of taxpayers with income between $100,000 and $200,000, not just those in the over $200,000 bracket.

Congress has not arrived at a decision about how to cap the alternative minimum tax, and if anything is changed, the article cites logistical problems (revising already-printed tax forms and reprogramming computers) that would delay the filing process.

If the alternative minimum tax is capped for 2007, it will cost $50 billion over the next decade. Where is that money coming from? The article says,

“Democrats want to fill that gap by raising taxes on certain superhigh-income people whose compensation is taxed at low rates. Republicans want to add the $50 billion to the deficit, and they have the votes to block the bill.”

This situation provides a good scenario to evaluate how different political parties approach fiscal policy.

Oprah and Obama

Few people doubt that Oprah's endorsement of Obama is a bad thing. Her name recognition and star power are formidable; when her book club chose to read Tolstoy's Anna Kerenina, the book became a best seller. But does this power translate to votes? It can be argued either way. It may be useful to Obama in taking some of the woman support away from Clinton. However, Time magazine argues that Oprah may actually hurt Obama. I personally don't think it would hurt him, but you can make up your own mind when you read the article.

The movement of the Court...

So we talked in class a lot about the makeup of the Supreme Court and appointments to the Court. I found an article in the New York Times magazine I thought some of you might be interested in. It is about Justice Stevens, one of the most "liberal" justices as well as the longest serving justice and his role on the Court. It talks a lot about the appointment of current justices and the political makeup of the Court. If you have time it is really interesting and it may help you understand a bit more about the current Supreme Court.
Do you think the Court has moved heavily to the right, as Justice Stevens thinks?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html

Huckabee + Romney + Religion = New Iowa Poll Numbers

A new Newsweek poll has Huckabee ahead in Iowa 2 to 1 over Mitt Romney. While Huckabee has been inching up as of late his numbers have never been this high. Amongst republicans he leads by 14 points (34 to 20) and by 22 points (39 to 17) amongst likely caucus goers. The survey was taken over Wednesday and Thursday (Romney's speech was given on thursday but the media began talking about it around Sunday or Monday)

There are a couple of other interesting numbers in the poll:

-When Huckabee and Romney supporters were asked if they supported their candidate 'strongly' or 'moderately' 54% of the Huck's fans were strong supporters compared to only 36% of Mitts.

-Huckabee leads Romney by 47 to 14 amongst evangelicals, who are predicted to make up 40% of the participants in the caucus.

-61% of Iowans say that they know that Huckabee was a minister, and knowing that 78% say that 'does not make much difference'

-84% know that Mitt is a Mormon, and there is a consistent group of about 17-20% who don't believe that makes him a Christian, and make them less likely to support him.

The poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from December 5-6. It surveyed 1,408 people and has margin of error of +/- 3% 19/20, +/-5% for republicans, and +/- 7% for likely republican caucus goers.

"Freedom requires religion"

You can read or watch Romney's 'Faith in America' address.
In his speech, Romney stressed that as President he would not put his religious beliefs before his duties in office. It is interesting that he only mentioned his Mormon faith a little before halfway through his speech. Perhaps he wanted to sneak it in there but not bring much attention to it. Although he advocates religious tolerance, his speech makes it sound as if he would only tolerate religions with one God. He speaks about how he admires other faiths that "draws its adherents closer to God" and claims that we are a nation under God. What about religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? What about atheism?
He seemed contradictory since he claimed that one's religion should not play a role in one's commitments to the law, but he believes that God "should remain on our currency, in our pledge, [and] in the teaching of our history."
Overall, I think he did a fairly good job in appealing to the Christian majority in America by emphasizing the importance of God rather than his Mormon faith. How do you think he did?

Substantive Due Process, Penumbras

Patrick asked about substantive due process. A report from the Congressional Research Service has a nice summary:

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no
person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The U.S. Supreme Court has understood due process to protect both procedural and substantive rights. Under the doctrine of substantive due process, the Court has held that certain rights, while not expressly recognized in the text of the Constitution, are subsumed within the notion of liberty in the Due Process Clauses. One aspect of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clauses is a right of personal privacy or “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy.” The Court has found that
certain personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

The report discussed the idea in the context of cloning, which (surprise!) also has a religious angle.

Here is an outline explanation of Griswold ("penumbras" and "emanations.")

Iran and American Intelligence

In probably the biggest news item of the week, the US government now thinks that Iran has stopped its nuclear program. Going back to our discussion recently about bureaucracy, hopefully this is a good sign that the Bush administration has succeeded in reforming the intelligence services. The 9/11 Commission Report makes it pretty clear that the US intelligence network needed help to prevent a similar attack. The Bush Administration changed the intelligence bureaucracy to make the agencies work together better. However, as the horribly incorrect intelligence before the Iraq invasion showed, American intelligence still had problems. Hopefully, the intelligence services woke up after both 9/11 and Iraq. This new intelligence report about Iran may (although it could still happen) have saved us from fighting another costly war based on bad intelligence.

God and Courts

See Jacinth's post below on creationism. Here is one sidelight to the Scopes trial: the textbook at issue not only included accurate information about evolution but also argued in favor of eugenics and racism. "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved," the book opined, "it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection." For its discussion of race, see here. (Also see the very fictional version of the trial in Inherit the Wind.)

Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, so it it worth considering his remarks on the subject.

With perfect timing for this course, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in a case involving religion, patriotism, and the meaning of the Declaration. Dr. Michael Newdow said that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to include "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on currency. From The New York Sun:

At times, the courtroom could have been mistaken for a college class on religion or philosophy as judges and lawyers argued about the beliefs of the founding fathers and about the meaning of the word, "God," in the pledge and on currency. At one point, Dr. Newdow, of all people, quoted scripture in an effort to demonstrate how the Hebrew Bible promotes hostility to atheists. A lawyer for a group supporting the rights of religious adherents, Kevin Hasson of the Becket Fund, said the God in the pledge is the same God referred to in the Declaration of Independence, but is not the deity in the Bible. "It wasn't the Christian God. It wasn't the Jewish God. It was the philosopher's God," Mr. Hasson said. He said the "under God" reference refers to a creator early philosophers and scientists like Aristotle concluded "could be known by reason alone."

Will Texas Inherit the Wind?

This story parallels our reading of Edwards v. Aguillard and the debate over teaching evolution and creationism in schools. Articles are online here and here.

Superiors forced Christine Comer, a science teacher and director of science for the Texas Education Agency, into resigning because she forwarding an e-mail about a lecture on evolution. The TEA asserted that the agency had to be neutral about the evolution/creationism debate and employees couldn’t openly come out against creationism.

The article mentions that in early 2008 Texas is scheduled for a 10-year evaluation and rewriting of the state’s science education standards, including teaching evolution. Comer says that instead of saying that the State Board of Education supports teaching evolution, recently she was instructed to cite the education standard:

“The student knows the theory of biological evolution [and is expected to] identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities and embryology,” as well as to “illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior and extinction.”

Years after the Scopes Monkey Trial and Edwards v. Aguillard, it is shocking that there is still controversy over teaching evolution in schools. It will be interesting to see how Texas decides to revamp its science standards and public reactions.

Mitt's Big Speech

CBS News is reporting that Mitt Romney will, like JFK before him, give a speech this Thursday on his personal faith and how that might or might not affect his presidency should he be elected. This seemed in keeping with a major theme of the class.

Any thoughts? What should he say? What should he avoid saying?

Courts

This week, we discuss the courts. The reading from the Administrative Office does a good job of explaining the mechanics of the federal judiciary.

One aspect of this week's discussion is likely to affect you directly. At some point, perhaps soon, most of you will get a call to jury duty. California has a good instructional video. According to Tocqueville (p. 275), the jury is "the most effective means of popular education at society's disposal." What do you think that phrase means?

Here is a brief clip of oral argument in the California Supreme Court. The case involves medical marijuana.

The case of Edwards v. Aguillard will give us a glimpse of how a Supreme Court case proceeds. It also touches on major themes of the course, including federalism (i.e., state control of education) and religion. Lest you think that Louisiana was taking a position on the political fringe, note that 58 percent of the respondents in a 2006 poll favored the teaching of creationism along with evolution.

Here are some questions that we shall consider:

What is the proper role of the judiciary in a democracy? How should judges decide? Should they see the Constitution evolving? What is the place of stare decisis?

If you have a special interest in the judiciary, here are some sites to visit:

• Official SCOTUS site
• Oyez (audio of oral arguments and much more)
• "The Supreme Court" (PBS documentary)
• California Supreme Court video and audio