Education and Inequality

At Politico, former Clinton political strategist Doug Sosnik writes:

One factor that has perpetuated the income gap is educational achievement – the single best predictor for future financial success. Since educational opportunities are disproportionately afforded to families at the top of the income ladder, the children of the less fortunate are finding social advancement through educational achievement even more difficult.

A June 2013 Brookings Institution Hamilton Project report found that “children of well-off families are disproportionately likely to stay well off and children of poor families are very likely to remain poor.” High-income parents are investing more in their children, widening the gap between the children of the rich and poor in test scores, college attendance and graduation. These gaps – combined with expanding income inequality – further threaten the ability of the next generation to improve their lot in life. The report also cites an earlier 2010 Carnevale and Strohl study that found that in most selective higher education institutions “… the wealthiest students out-populate the poorest students by a margin of 14 to one.”

Research conducted by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu and David Autor in 2010 shows that for males, the wage gap by education began to widen in our country at the beginning of the 1980s. While male workers who went to graduate school before that time consistently outperformed everyone else in income levels, there was not a significant variation in wage levels among male workers who either graduated or attended college, graduated high school or dropped out before completing their studies. However, during the 1980s, a widening income gap emerged between college graduates and those with little or no college participation, making education the defining predictor of a person’s chances for financial success in the future.

 

Politics and Movies

Birth of a Nation (1915) -- the first movie to have a White House screening, sadly revealing Woodrow Wilson's writings and racial attitudes in the early 20th century (at 2:47:30).

Gabriel Over the White House (1933).

Mission to Moscow (1943) -- pro-Soviet propaganda

Duck and Cover (1951) -- civil defense documentary on saving yourself from the Bomb.

Fail-Safe (1964) -- after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a scary look at an accidental nuclear attack --

Dr. Strangelove (1964) -- a satirical look at an accidental nuclear attack.

Dirty Harry (1971) -- the exclusionary rule

The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) on money and politics

The Lion King (1994) --Compare Nuremberg rally (at 7:30) with "Be Prepared" 

On SATs and Racism

There was a little bit of discussion near the end of class about the SATS, and I said I would make a blog post about the claim that the SATs are racially biased. While this isn't necessarily directly related to Professor Pitney's question about two students who are in all ways equally qualified with the exception of their background, it is nevertheless relevant as it addresses how we determine who is and is not qualified in the first place.

Here is a link to a pretty good article about race and the SATs. It does a good job of laying out some of the basic issues with the SATs and race. If you only read one of the articles I link to here, you should probably make it that one. It highlights a particularly significant effect of the "pre-testing" aspect of the SAT, in which certain non-scored sections are used to evaluate questions for future use. Because the questions selected for future use are those in which high-scoring students answer correctly, "questions answered correctly by blacks more than whites have been routinely excluded from future use on the SAT. Although questions that whites answer correctly 30 percent more often than blacks are allowed to remain on the test, questions answered correctly even 7 percent more often by blacks than whites have been thrown out." I would suggest reading this article, which speaks further to the issue of "black" and "white" questions and the problems associated with pre-testing questions for use on the SAT.

In this blog post, the author references a book of essays on the subject, entitled SAT Wars, and also touches on the less talked-about gender bias of the SATs, in which "the math portion of the test is 'male-leaning,' citing data from 1998 and 2000 which found that men performed better than women on 97 percent of math test questions whereas women performed better than men on only .8 percent of them." In SAT Wars, one contributor "suggested that the composition of questions is unfair, and that the percentage of questions skewed toward men versus those skewed toward women is unnatural."

This article discusses a phenomenon I found surprising, which is that "at each level of ability, but particularly in the lower-scoring groups, white students on average did better than blacks on the easier items, whereas blacks on average did better than whites on the harder ones. (Whites, however, as a group did better overall.)" However, because there is no weighting of harder questions over easier ones, blacks got no credit for performing better on more difficult parts of the test.

Finally, this article does a pretty good job of speaking to the relationship between SATs, affirmative action, and future success.

Food for Thought after Today's Discussion

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/the-glass-floor-problem/?_r=0

Fun videos

Great things on the Jimmy Fallon Show

And go to 30 seconds in to see what we all looked like inside when Pitney's kids came in the room.

Civil Liberties and Inequality

Citizen's Arrest

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Bail bondsmen -- uniquely American
• Cruel and unusual by what standard?  See   Roper v. Simmons

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

• "Tenthers"

Amendment XIX -suffrage and The Seneca Falls Declaration

-------------------------------

Educational Attainment

What are the elite schools?  As Murray suggests (p. 57), the answers are here and here.

The economic results of education

Income Data

OVER THANKSGIVING BREAK, TAKE MURRAY'S 

"BUBBLE QUIZ" HERE

Women Can Be In the Kitchen... If They Want To.

In the prologue of Coming Apart, Murray discusses the disparity between the rights of men and those of women in 1963. We have seen tremendous growth in the opportunities and rights provided for women in America, with one caveat. The push for equality has led to the societal discouragement of women in the home. Growing up, I was told that I would go to college. I was told that since my teachers said that I had the potential to do well in school, I should ride that to a career and that work opportunities would present themselves if I studied hard enough and got into a good college. This seems to be a trend in American society. A focus on careers and money and competition to have the highest salary when you grow up has stunted what I believe is the reason for working. I believe you work for one of three reasons: you need the money for survival or to support your family, you love what you do, or you believe what you're doing makes a difference. The disgusting emphasis on materialism has led to a cutthroat environment in which these goals reasons have been replaced by greed and selfish pride. I don't think that I have to have the most money to be happy or successful. Yet for my entire life, I've been told that a career oriented life is the one worth living. But I disagree. I acknowledge the fact that working is a necessary step to establishing and sustaining one's life, but that's not my goal. I want to get married and have children. That's my number one goal in life. And I'm disappointed that the drive for gender equality has created a society that considers me as less successful if I choose to stay at home, cook, and take care of my family. The decision to become a stay at home mom is now considered unusual or odd amongst those with higher educations, but didn't the fight for equality glorify a woman's right to be whatever or whoever she desired? The choice to become a stay at home or part time working mother does not equate to the condemnation of the opportunities provided by the fight for gender equality. Kudos for the female CEOs, attorneys, and surgeons, but also kudos to the women raising the next generation. Mostly, kudos to men and women who do what they want, and live their lives according to their own standards.

WHY YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST ON FACEBOOK

"It's amazing. Every year this part of our job gets easier. Between Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr, people are surveilling themselves." -- Phil Coulson of SHIELD

Here is an example.

Senate Changes Fillibuster Laws

In a milestone decision proposed by majority leader Harry Reid, the US Senate voted today to remove the use of filibuster for presidential nominees, except for nominees to the US Supreme Court.  The 52-48 vote comes off the heels of three Republican filibusters of President Obama's nominees to the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.  This is a drastic change to Senate procedure, and gives substantially more power to the majority party in the Senate, especially if the majority party is the same as the party of the President, as is currently the case.  The new rule has the potential to significantly affect the power of the checks and balances system, both within the Senate and between the legislative and executive branches.  You can see a full Politico article here.   

JFK and Civil Rights

Today in class we talked extensively about JFK and the civil rights movement. I found a great story on NPR about President Kennedy and his support for civil rights. The host speaks with Georgia Representative John Lewis, a leader of the movement, about his relationship with JFK. Clayborne Carson, a historian at Stanford, gives comments on President Kennedy's initial reluctance to introduce civil rights legislation and then his eventual support for the movement. They reference JFK's speech to the American people in the summer of 1963, where he makes the point that civil rights is a moral issue. Here is footage of JFK's speech:

"Assault on civil liberties in the land of the free and the home of the brave."

civil liberties n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government

civil rights n.The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Compared to other countries, America is progressive in terms of civil rights and civil liberties. However, an article I found on watchdog.org highlights the unpleasant reality that even in a country as forward thinking and inclusive as America seems to be, there is a gray line between what law enforcement has the legal justification to do, and what the establishment of civil rights and liberties should protect people from. The citizens of the US know that that government is not perfect, but now a question is raised as to whether all of the progress we have made to protect people from infringement of their rights has been comprehensive enough. This article reveals that within our systems of authority there are misdemeanors and unacceptable breaches in what people should reasonably be exposed to.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The complexity of our civil rights protection

I found the Voting Rights panel today to be very fitting with what we are discussing in class. The talk today focused on the recent Shelby County v Holder case, which ruled Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This part of the law defined the states who had to be pre-cleared before making changes to their elections law. In the decision, the Court found that this section burdened individual states by denying them equal protection based on 50-year old data.

This particular case reflects the complexity involved in protecting the rights of citizens. Currently, our protection of civil rights (like freedom of speech, right to vote, etc.) comes from not only Amendments to the constitution, but also proceeding statute as well as court interpretations. Thus, each civil right that we consider a part of our country is truly both protected and threatened by this relationship.

Air Midterm

Relax. This “air midterm” does not count toward your grade; do not even turn it in. Instead, use it to appraise your own progress in the course. Try out this test, either in your head or on paper.If you flounder, then you should take more care with class sessions and assigned readings.

I. Identifications  In a short paragraph each, explain the meaning and significance of the following items. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. “Energy in the executive”
2. Jon Huntsman
3. “Selective incorporation”
4. Self-evident truths
5. Spaghetti chart
6. Moeurs
7. Ninth Amendment
8. Iowa caucuses
9. The Seneca Falls Declaration
10. The Supremacy Clause
11. Super PAC
12. Federal Register

II.   Short essays.  In a couple of paragraphs each, answer the following.

• Explain different meanings of political party.
• Explain the political impact of the Three-Fifths Clause.
• “[A]nd to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.”  Explain.
• “The President of the United States possesses almost royal prerogatives which he has no occasion to use, and the rights of which he has been able to make use so far are very circumscribed; the laws allow him to be strong, but circumstances have made him weak.” Explain.

III. General Essays (2-3 bluebooks pages each)

• According to Tocqueville, what are the main causes that maintain a democratic republic in the United States? Explain.
• Is federalism beneficial? Explain.
• Should we amend Article V to make it easier to amend the Constitution and call a constitutional convention?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

• Denny Rehberg
• David Rivera
• Susan Rice
• Jay Root
• Ricci Ramos

Civil Rights

Civil War Amendments

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Timeline of Civil Rights

The Gettysburg Address

Tuesday marks the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which we discussed earlier in the semester. At The Los Angeles Times, Ronald C. White has an excellent article about it.  Read the whole thing, but here are some especially useful passages:

We don't know for certain when he wrote the speech, but we do know Lincoln continued to edit his address in the upstairs bedroom in [David] Wills' home, where he stayed the night before the dedication ceremony. He understood there is no such thing as good writing; there is only good rewriting.
...
Lincoln rose, adjusted his spectacles, and began: "Four score and seven years ago." The first two words rhyme, setting in motion a symphony of sounds. The biblical ring of his opening was rooted in lines from Psalm 90. Lincoln never mentioned the Bible, but the whole of his speech was suffused with both biblical content and cadence.
...

Lincoln, who always chose his words carefully, here selected words that conjured up the call to religious commitment he heard regularly in the preaching at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington.

At this point in his delivery, Lincoln made the only addition to the text he had written. He interjected "under God." Unlike words added extemporaneously in earlier speeches, which he often edited out before he allowed a speech to be published, Lincoln included "under God" in subsequent copies of the address.

Those words pointed toward the next phrase, "a new birth of freedom," with its layered political and religious meanings. Politically speaking, at Gettysburg he was no longer defending an old Union but proclaiming a new one.

... 

So what should writers and speechmakers see in the mirror 150 years later?

Readers of the essay question in the SAT exam lamented recently that as today's high school students struggle to write comprehensible English, they try to impress by resorting to big words.

Let Lincoln be their guide. He chose his words carefully. In his 272 words, 204 were sturdy one syllable words, the kind he so appreciated in the Bible and in Shakespeare.

Sexual Assault in the Military

As we lead into civil rights, the issue of sexual assault in the military is a very current issue. Civil rights are defined as "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." People should not have to live in fear, they should be adequately protected and represented by the law, and they should not be discriminated against or attacked in any manner. Sexual assault in the military is a problem that has been recognized, and the efforts to fix this problem are ongoing.

This video shows  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand discussing the issue in policy regarding the way sexual assault is reported and dealt with within the military. At this point in time, a member of the armed forces who is sexually assaulted must go through the chain of command to report the incident. Often times, a service member will not do so due to embarrassment, or lack of faith in responsive action. 

The drive to eliminate the need to go through chain of command is ongoing (see here) and is a pressing matter, as the statistics from indicate that roughly 26,000 service members report having been sexually assaulted (for article, see here)

"I don't think it's a question of being progressive or conservative. I think it's whether you're going to listen to what victims and survivors have told us about what's wrong with the system or not," Gillibrand said. "They say, 'I'm not reporting because I don't trust the chain of command.' If you do not listen to that and you do not believe it, then you will not look for this reform. So it's really just a question of whether you believe what the victims say is true."

Civil Rights and Disabilities

Although dated, an article by Harlan Hahn of USC addresses "crucial areas of agreement and disagreement about the "minority group model" (views prejudice and discrimination as the major issues confronting citizens with disabilities) both within and between disabled and non-disabled segments of the population, and to develop a case for the benefits that can be derived from policies founded on a socio-political understanding of disability." It provides an interesting discussion, especially that of the environment in which disabled persons have to live. Hahn asserts that the problems for disabled persons is composed not only of individual characteristics (health centered, personal limitations due to a disability), but also to external, environmental factors that stem directly from the perception of society and the regulations addressing the needs required by the disabled. What he describes as a "disabling environment" is created when the needs of those with disabilities are acknowledged, but not met. 

Nonetheless, many of the problems mention in the article, mostly those regarding architectural/building environments and the lack of aims to promote inclusivity, have made immense progress since the time it was written. The ADA (1990) and IDEA (2004) have made groundbreaking progress in establishing the foundation for equality for members of the American disabled community. Although, as a country, our laws do not completely remedy the issue that face the disabled, we are further on the path towards the ideal than arguably any other country. 

Bureaucracy and Public Policy

• DHS organization chart

Tocqueville on "The Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear"

It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritances. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living?…It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men’s will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd.

• Regulation

The Citizen's Perspective

• Form 1040 and instructions
• A spaghetti chart
• Charts for Parents of ASD kids

Federalism

The Constitution and Federalism

• Article IV
• Article V
• Article VI
• 16th Amendment
• 17th Amendment
• 18th Amendment

The same-sex marriage cases:

• US v. Windsor (on DOMA)
• Hollingsworth v. Perry (on CA Prop 8 and the issue of standing)

The Federalist:

• Federalist 39: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."
• Federalist 45: "The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government."
• Federalist 46: "It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage."

Marijuana Federalism:

Stand Your Ground

I read in the news that two weeks ago, early Saturday morning, Renisha McBride, a 19 year old black woman, was shot in the head and killed. McBride, who was unarmed, was looking for help, as she had had a car accident in a neighborhood unfamiliar to her. The shooter claims to have felt threatened and that McBride did not call for help. The shooting took place in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, which is a state that has a stand-your-ground law. In general, a stand-your-ground law allows a person to use deadly force to protect himself in situations where he feels his life is in danger, and many states, including Florida where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Michigan's law specifically states it is applicable if "the individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual" or in cases of possible sexual assault.

The stand-your-ground laws raise many issues to me. It is possible that the homeowner was truly scared for his life and thought McBride posed a serious threat, but at the same time, critics of these laws claim they call for unnecessary violence and warp the concept of self defense. Do these laws make a significant impact on crime, and do they actually make everyone safer or put some in more danger?

Elections and Campaigns

2012 Exit Poll, Continued

Message Box (pp. 29-30)

Archive of ads

Many sources on elections

"Fixing the System"

Given that Election Day is tomorrow and we have been discussing voting/elections in class, I found this Op-Ed pretty interesting. In the piece, journalist Joe Nocera gives ideas for how to increase voter turnout in the United States and decrease the prevalence of highly polarized candidates. 

His ideas: 

• Move elections to the weekend
• Nocera argues that weekend polling would make it easier for many to vote, especially blue-collar workers. 

• Term limits for the Supreme Court
• This idea is taken from Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute who thinks justices should be given one 18-year term to allow older people to receive nominations and decrease the partisan politics of judicial nominations. 

• Open primaries
• Nocera references the open primary system in California as proof that open primaries with the top two primary vote-getters running against each other in the general election makes politics less partisan. 

• End gerrymandering
• Gerrymandering allows parties to gain power and elect strongly polarized candidates, so he thinks equal districts would elect moderate candidates. 

• Bring back the small donor
• The power of big money can be discouraging for many, Nocera argues that a small donor matching system like that of NYC could create donor diversity and greater political participation. 

Do you agree with his ideas? We have discussed many of these topics in class; would it be feasible to change things like national campaign donation practices and create Supreme Court term limits? Any other ideas to increase voter participation and end partisanship? Are these goals we should be focusing on right now? 

Voting protections

I came across an article about the federal trial that began Monday in which a Wisconsin voter ID law is being challenged under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Wisconsin law requires voters to have a state-issued ID. This past June, the Supreme Court struck down part of the law, but did not rule on section now being challenged, which prohibits procedures that discriminate on race or other protected groups. The Advancement Project and the American Civil Liberties Union both brought cases against the law, saying that the law makes it harder for minorities to vote. A county judge has already blocked the law, but opponents of the law want ensure the requirement will not go back into effect. Proponents of the law argue that all citizens can obtain an ID and that the law helps limit voter fraud in the state.

The topic is very fitting to what we have been discussing in class and brings up the issue of voting in America. Particularly, this questions the function of the government in regulating voting. What is the balance between protecting the right of citizens to vote and protecting citizens from voter fraud?

The First Rule of Holes

So today in class we briefly discussed the fact that Rand Paul has gotten into a bit of trouble for his plagiarizing. His website initially added footnotes, and is now taking down entire transcripts.

My mom always taught me that the first rule of holes is that "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Obviously, Rand Paul has not learned this rule. If you didn't know too much about the Paul family stubbornness, you would think that now that he is in trouble for plagiarism, Rand would back off a bit and try not to do any other unwise things while the spotlight is on him. You would be mistaken.

He has jokingly(?) said that he wishes he could challenge his accusers to a duel. Yes, with guns. I would really advise reading the actual article here, because the punchline to this joke is that the only thing holding him back from the duel is the fact that Kentucky makes state-level officeholders swear an oath that they haven't participated in a duel, so if he did, he couldn't run for state office in Kentucky. Ha ha! Obsolete Kentuckian constitutional provision duel jokes!

On a related note, the Washington Post has published an article which discusses whether the plagiarism controversy will affect Paul's chances in the 2016 presidential campaign. Personally, I don't want to talk about that, because I'd like a break before we get back to presidential politics. Seriously, we haven't even had the midterms yet. People need to calm down. 

Anyway, everyone should take this as a lesson in the importance of accurate citation, lest you be pursued by what Paul calls "the footnote police." It could be vital to your chances of becoming the president.

Nomination, Convention, Campaign

The 2012 nomination contest in one graph.

Voting, shmoting

Turnout data

Forecasting elections

Exit poll

So this is Interesting...

I was wondering what became of some of the candidates from the GOP primary in 2012. Here's an interesting piece I ran into about Herman Cain. Apparently, the Devil was to blame for the sexual harassment allegations against him. No, that is not an Onion article. Just thought you all might be interested to find out that one of the Devil's main priorities was derailing the presidential campaign of pizza moguls.

Lobbying and Polarization

Lobbying:

We talked about lobbying a couple classes ago and I recently came across this article which summarizes a study by Utah State University Professor Benjamin Blau on lobbying by banks during the financial crisis. The basis of Blau's article was that politically connected banks got more from the bailout than banks that spent less on lobbying and campaign contributions. This fact is pretty intuitive, but it is still interesting to see how it has played out recently through the data.

Polarization:

We talked about polarization quite a bit on Wednesday. I commented in class that I thought the problem was bigger than just polarization in politicians/parties. I think it is that people in our country are more polarized, more disunited than ever before. Like Professor Pitney said in class (and I am paraphrasing here), "there are two radically different America's now." One possibility for the cause of such polarization in the public I was thinking about in class and decided to do some more research on is the role mass media plays. The way we get our information now by countless internet sources and television channels is much different that the more limited set of options our parents and grandparents had. Before everyone generally watched the same few, more centrist, news channels. Tulane Professor James Carville also seems to think this is a problem. In his article for The Hill titled, "Disturbing polarization in media worsens political partisanship", Carville points to media as a significant factor.

I think a lot of people will look back at this point in American political history and wonder how things got so damn screwed up. It wasn’t always a given that there would be mindless gridlock on Capitol Hill, unchecked extremism and a general lack of leadership. 

Sure, one could point to the corrupting influence of lobbyists and interest groups on Congress. Or to gerrymandering. Or to Citizens United, which allows money to literally control politics and has made political parties less relevant, and allowed the proliferation of the ultra conservative Tea Party. There are plenty of others. 

But perhaps as much as anything is the disturbing fragmentation of the media. Today, conservatives can get all their information from conservative outlets, and liberals can get all their information from liberal outfits. And you can spend your whole life never being challenged, never having to hear or think about or confront viewpoints that are different from your own.

Carville sounds nice here, and his point seems logical. However, this interesting academic article by Princeton Professor Markus Prior comes to a different conclusion. Through his study Prior finds that those who use partisan media are already partisan. Or in other words, there is no evidence that media caused polarization.

In the 1970s, about a quarter of Americans identified strongly with a political party. Media in the broadcast era were probably too centrist for these people’s tastes. Technological change has made it economically viable to cater to smaller audience segments.6 Nobody should be surprised that some strong partisans turned to more ideologically congruous media formats when they became available. But that audience migration alone does not constitute evidence that partisan media polarize Americans. The difference between the media-catching-up-with-partisan-fringes view and the media-pushing-Americans-to-partisan-extremes account is large and of critical importance for the trajectory of American politics in a high-choice media environment. Research to date does not offer compelling evidence that partisan media have made Americans more partisan.Most voters are centrist. Most voters avoid partisan media altogether or mix and match across ideological lines. And those who follow partisan media closely and select mostly one side are already partisan. 

This weekend I stumbled across a short article on the creation of a super PAC by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. The purpose of the super PAC, according to its website, is to

"support candidates who are committed to restoring strong American economic and national security through independent expenditures and campaigns and issue-oriented education."

Bolton is one of the most right-wing foreign policy voices in the GOP and has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration. According to the Politico article, Bolton intends to use this super PAC to "prod candidates on foriegn policy issues during the 2014 midterm elections." This article raised a couple of questions for me:

1. How much influence does Bolton really believe he will have in the 2014 elections? Is the creation of his super PAC merely a symbolic gesture to draw attention to his views on foreign policy?
2. How much can a personal super PAC really expect to raise without strong support from a corporation or other extremely wealthy donor?

The link to his super PAC website his here.