The Hill Has Moved!

2010-08-27T19:29:00.001-07:00

With a growing readership, and the realization that management of the blog needs to be able to be easily transferred, The Hill staff realized that we needed to move our blog to a new location.

With lots of new features, and an ease of access that will make maintaining the blog easier for many years and many editors to come, this truly was the best decision for the continuity of our blog.

But don't worry, we're still public and we've moved all the old posts to our new site! So please, continue reading!

Check us out at: http://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com/

And, as always, check out our website at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill/

Thanks for reading!

Whose Power Is It?

2010-04-25T18:45:00.000-07:00

United States immigration policy has long been formed at the federal level, with Congress and the president setting the agenda. The state of Arizona, however, just passed a bill giving local law enforcement authority over immigration and illegal immigrants. Under the new bill, which Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on Friday, it will be a state crime for illegal immigrants to be in Arizona; more than that, all immigrants will have to carry their “alien registration documents” at all times. The new bill also gives local law enforcement the power to ask people about their immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that those persons are undocumented.

Critics of the law claim it will lead to racial profiling. Anyone who appears as though they are not a natural born American citizen can be asked to prove their citizenship. And the most obvious way of guessing whether one might be a citizen or an alien? Ethnicity, of course. So perhaps these fears aren’t entirely unfounded. It seems clear that certain people will be stopped and questioned more than others.

One cannot entirely blame Arizona for taking a step towards combating the influx of illegal immigrants. Arizona does have the right to protect its borders against illegal immigration. And like any state, Arizona pays many costs for housing illegal aliens. Given that federal action against the illegal immigration problem has fallen by the wayside as a result of the financial crisis and conflicts abroad, it makes sense that Arizona chose to try and solve the issue on its own.

It seems, however, that there are still issues to work out regarding this legislation. Many question the law’s constitutionality by arguing that only the federal government has authority over immigration. Furthermore, with claims that the law will lead to racial profiling, regulations and oversight mechanisms need to be put into place to prevent such profiling—which maybe impossible, given the subject and the law. At this point, however, it’s up to the courts to decide. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon has already promised to take the law to court, where a judge can decide whether states have any authority over immigration.

SARAH WENTZ

A Victory for American Power

2010-04-15T19:22:00.000-07:00

At first glance, an agreement that will send hundreds of deployed warheads back into their silos might not seem like a boon for US power. But by restricting America’s hard power, the “New START” treaty recently signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will amplify America’s soft-power capabilities. Soft power is the amalgam of economic, social, and cultural influences that a country projects to improve national prestige and to increase its influence on other nations. Footage of the President of the United States signing an agreement condemning hundreds of missiles to the scrap yard is a powerful way to show that America is not an aggressor nation. This symbol is even more powerful considering that, twenty years ago, Obama and Medvedev would have been at each other’s throats. Although the treaty alone will not convince Jihadists on the river Euphrates—or even fellow-travelers on the river Seine—that America does not aspire to global hegegmony, voluntarily reducing our arsenal could strengthen the international consensus for tough sanctions on Iran by demonstrating that our purpose is reducing the threat of nuclear war, not toppling the Iranian government and setting up a neo-colonial oil venture. And should worst come to worst, our newfound credibility will allow us to vigorously check Iran’s aggression if and when that country acquires nuclear weapons.

This strategy of voluntary arms reduction could reinvigorate the tradition of the morally humble liberal hawk. Better suited to conduct foreign policy than either the pacifist left or the Manichean, interventionist right, the liberal hawks have suffered over the last decade due to the polarization of the post-9/11 era. An anti-proliferation agenda would help to improve America’s flaws while ensuring peace and safety around the world—precisely the principle upon which the liberal hawks base their ideology. Reciprocity is the key; any attempt to improve the world must begin by recognizing that America itself is not morally pure. Cutting our nuclear arsenal while acting to reduce proliferation abroad will put this principle into practice; enhance the internal consistency of America’s defense policy, and re-establish the foundations of a foreign policy tradition that should not have been allowed to atrophy.

ALEX JONES

Environmentalism in the Balance

2010-04-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

Recently, The New York Times ran an unusual headline: “Obama Proposes Opening Vast Offshore Areas to Drilling.” Unusual, that is, to anyone who hasn’t followed the debate over climate policy taking place in the US Senate during the last few months. Amid the public options and accusations of Hitlerism, a quiet revolution is taking place in the most important environmental debate of our time. Environmentalists, long caricatured as beatniks prepared to sacrifice the economy on the altar of the polar bear, have in fact become ruthlessly pragmatic, cutting hard bargains with business interests and their satellites in Congress to reach deals that balance the dual imperatives of economic growth and climate protection. The best strategy for emissions reduction—a simple carbon tax—was dismissed as politically impossible. The best alternative—cap-and-trade, with all permits auctioned—is eroding, as nervous senators worry about high energy prices depleting the industrial base. Nevertheless, all the major environmental groups maintain their support for the bill. Given all the compromises that brought climate legislation to this point, the failure or passage of this bill will likely determine the direction of the environmental movement. To paraphrase Al Gore, environmentalism hangs in the balance.

If the climate bill passes and the US begins reducing emissions, environmentalism will remain largely intact. Some elements may complain that the mainstream organizations are too close to the industries and government institutions they are supposed to check, but these frustrations will go mostly ignored. If, however, Congress fails to take action, the environmental movement may become more stridently anti-establishment, more interested in civil disobedience and less inclined to seek a balance between nature and commerce. In short, the movement could become more disruptive and less predictable. The results might veer in one of two diverging directions. On the one hand, a die-hard environmental movement could be a useful counterweight to the polluters, who have often shown little concern for the objections of environmental advocates (or citizens in affected communities, for that matter). On the other hand, aggressive, narrowly focused advocates might not be able to influence policy effectively—especially on mundane matters that require a great deal of expertise and receive little publicity. Plus, influencing legislation is difficult when your representatives on the Hill have little clout or connection to the grassroots.

A moderate, establishmentarian wing is essential to ensure that environmental objections are met without sacrificing too much prosperity or alienating too many erstwhile allies. In order to build broad-based support—a necessity for any successful social movement—environmentalism must appeal to as many potential partners as possible. If we want to continue to see clean air, clean water and intact wilderness—and if we want to avoid climatic catastrophe—we must pass this imperfect bill. Otherwise, the earth and its advocates may slip from the balance, and we will lose what many have worked to protect.

ALEX JONES

You Still Gotta Play Nice

2010-04-01T19:48:00.000-07:00

Politics is tough, I get that. When you’re president of the United States, you have to make tough decisions. But I think that good manners and civility should be indisputable, irremovable components of political strategy. President Obama’s recent actions regarding Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu seem to suggest otherwise. Never before has a United States president snubbed a fellow world leader within the White House itself.

Admittedly, Israel came in unwilling to make concessions. President Obama met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but the prime minister refused to make any written agreements of concession. After a while, President Obama excused himself but invited the prime minister to stay and “let [Obama] know if anything changed.” The Israeli delegation felt so uncomfortable and embarrassed that they eventually left for the Israeli embassy, not even feeling secure enough to use the White House telephone lines.

Sources report that Prime Minister Netanyahu failed to convince President Obama that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Some suggest that Israel hoped the president would be too busy with domestic issues to pay much attention to the Middle East. In the end, not much got done, and the Israel delegation left in a huff.

Playing hardball is well and good, but actions like abandoning a world leader because they don’t want to negotiate seem petty. The United States has garnered a fair amount of international respect, but when our president embarrasses a diplomat who has come to negotiate, it does not reflect well on our country.

Obama aides report that bonds between Israel and the United States are still strong, and that the two allies can disagree without much damage. It looks as though the incivility didn’t hurt the process too much, but such tactics hardly seem like good political strategy. Nations are less willing to make concessions if you don’t treat them with respect.

SARAH WENTZ

"18 Millions Jobs," The Nation, and the Role of the Media

2010-03-31T10:18:00.000-07:00

“...The unemployment rate will stand at around 4 percent when Obama runs for re-election in 2012.” This seeming pipe dream can actually happen, writes economist Robert Pollin in a recent issue of The Nation. Pollin arguesthat by propping up demand through fiscal aid to states, releasing bank reserves and channeling them toward business investment, and boosting the supply side by spending on infrastructure, Congress can create 500,000 jobs every month for the next two-and-a-half years, bringing the economy back to full employment just in time for the next presidential election. The proposal is far from perfect—in particular, Pollin seems far too sanguine about the possibility of inflation—but the piece is worth reading. Pollin lays out a coherent alternative to the pessimism that dominates discussions of the US labor market. More cautious publications would not print such a radical proposal, perhaps out of (well-grounded) fear that the idea might turn out to be catastrophically wrong. And that’s why media outlets outside the country’s political center are so important.

Their articles can sometimes be shrill and intemperate—and also bold and visionary. Because they need not hew the line of the governing parties, they permanently enjoy the freedom of the opposition. This is the freedom to safely propose ideas too transformative to penetrate the cocoons of those who must concern themselves with the day-to-day stresses of governing. Dissident publications become laboratories for concepts that might one day fundamentally change the way policymakers view American life.

Without the writings of another unorthodox economist and Nation contributor, John Kenneth Galbraith, our fixation with growth at the expense of other measures of social welfare might have pre-empted Medicare, Medicaid and other achievements of the Great Society era. Today, our society is kept affluent—even in times of recession—in large part due to the stabilizing effects of these programs. It would be foolish if the media outlets that voice “conventional wisdom”—a term coined by Galbraith himself—kept us from considering what the mainstream perpetually deems unattainable.

ALEX JONES

Peace in Sudan? Perhaps

2010-02-28T18:40:00.001-08:00

Okay, I’ll admit it. In the rush of day-to-day life, I often forget about Sudan. The Darfur conflict has been going on since 2003 but is still generally ignored by the media. Issues closer to home tend to grab my attention. The conflicts between Republicans and Democrats over health care and the Iraq War seem far more relevant, especially since those issues receive much more mainstream media coverage than does Sudan.

But since the conflict began in 2003, the estimated death toll has reached 300,000, and more than 2.5 million civilians have been displaced. Maybe it deserves our attention. So when I was flipping through Google News and a saw the little blurb “Peace in Sudan?” I was caught off guard. Surely I’d have seen something if the conflict was over. And it isn’t yet, but for once it looks like an end might be in sight.

As of now, a temporary truce has been signed between the largest opposition group and the Khartoum regime. The two have plans to talk further to reach a permanent agreement. A worrisome component of this agreement, however, is the March 15 deadline for a permanent peace treaty. Can two groups that have been fighting for seven years reach an agreement in three weeks? As much as I’d like to believe the answer is yes, I find it nearly impossible.

After all, there was a peace agreement in 2006 between one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLA) and the Sudanese government. Unfortunately, another faction of the SLA did not sign the treaty, and violence continued in the region. The latest treaty was signed by the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) and the Khartoum regime. Other rebel groups such as the SLA refuse to sign even this temporary treaty until all violence is stopped. And while the Sudanese government says they intend to include other factions in the negotiations, those factions are angered by the separate ceasefire with Jem. Some rebel groups have united to form the Liberation and Justice Movement in opposition to Jem.

It may be a little early to expect a permanent ceasefire. The current negotiations seem to be further alienating rebel groups rather than bringing everyone to the table for a discussion on ending the conflict. It’s disheartening when one of the major obstacles to peace results from excluding some dissenting groups. However, if the Sudanese government reaches out to the other rebel groups, as they claim they intend to, perhaps peace in Darfur is closer than we think.

I hope that if a permanent peace agreement is reached in Darfur, then the media will give it the proper coverage. After all, the end of a seven-year-long conflict that many had written off as hopeless is nothing if not newsworthy. And it’s certainly more interesting than hearing more reports that Congress is at a standstill as they argue about healthcare.

SARAH WENTZ

Obama and the Lama

2010-02-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

After reading about Obama’s one-hour meeting with the Dalai Lama last week, I sat there pondering what in the world the two could have talked about.

Dalai Lama: I recall your victory speech at Chicago’s Grant Park—good speech.
Obama: Why thank you. Uhhh, I've heard that green tea from the high mountains of Tibet is excellent.
Dalai Lama: Yes...
59 minutes of awkward silence)
Obama: Well, it was great seeing you, and I hope to see you again in four years because then it means I’ve been reelected.

OK, that’s probably not what the two talked about, but I think this is a good summary of what passed between the former and current Nobel Prize winners: absolutely nothing substantial. It wouldn't be the first time...

Lama to George W. Bush: Maybe the Texas Rangers will win it all this year!
Lama to Bill Clinton: It’s a shame I can’t eat beef, because I sure want to try that McDonald’s Big Mac you recommended.
Lama to George H.W. Bush: I’ve been invited to many homes, and I have to say that yours is the nicest!

The Dalai Lama has been to see each president since George H.W. Bush, who is responsible for initiating this useless and counterproductive tradition. The Tibetan figurehead has treaded the middle line for decades, carefully distancing himself from the violent rebellion in Tibet in 2008 while loudly calling for increased autonomy, but he has never called and never will call for independence. America has always respected the integrity of China’s geographical boundary, which includes Tibet. So why did Obama meet the lama in spite of strenuous protests from America’s most intimate trade partner and biggest creditor?

Does the president not have anything better to do? Health care reform, immigration reform, Afghanistan, and unemployment rates are all issues that voters care more about than some place few Americans can find on the map. Does the average jobless family in Detroit care about Tibet?

I’m guessing that when Obama looked at his schedule on the day of the lama meeting, it probably said: “9 O’clock: Meet with Dalai Lama and piss off China.”

The Dalai Lama is a moderate; a moderate and soft-spoken man is all he is. I mean, God/Buddha bless him, but has he actually changed anything in Tibet? Chinese control of Tibet has only tightened over the last few decades, and it is increasingly clear that China considers a meeting between the U.S. president and the Dalai Lama to be an insult.

I just wish the government could see the political consequences of its gesture, because that’s really all the meeting is: a gesture. The meetings are always hush hush and brief, and nothing concrete has ever come out of them. But future cooperation between the United States and China is vital in every aspect, from politics to the world economy to the military. There are direct negative consequences from this one-hour meeting that has not produced, does not produce and will never produce any changes in Chinese policy. China has already backed out of helping the United States corral Iran, and the Chinese military is closing its curtains again just as the two powers began working on military transparency. Why strain a potential world-leading partnership? I think if some future president decides to stop the meetings, China will be grateful and give back in the form of a little more autonomy for the Tibetans.

DAN KANG

Showing Some Spine

2010-02-22T10:56:00.000-08:00

After Scott Brown's victory in the special Massachusetts Senate election nearly a month ago, many in the mainstream media sounded the death knell for Barack Obama's health care reform. Brown's victory stripped the Democrats of their 60-vote supermajority. Without the numbers, it was said, Democratic senators had no chance of blocking Senate Republicans from filibustering health care reform, and the bill would not pass unless it was watered down to attract at least some Republican support. However, after Harry Reid's recent announcement that Democrats will push health care reform through the Senate using a congressional procedure known as budget reconciliation, it seems as if the bill may indeed have a chance of passing without any Republican support.

The reconciliation process is an obscure and complex one that can be used to streamline the passage of any measures that affect the federal budget and reduce the deficit. Essentially, when a bill is brought to Congress under the reconciliation procedure, debate in either house is limited, and, in the Senate, the use of the filibuster is forbidden. As a result, only a simple majority of 51 votes—rather than the traditional supermajority of 60—is needed to pass the bill in the upper chamber. This would solve the Democrats’ 60-vote problem, and enable them to include particularily divisive provisions—such as a public option—which conservative members of their own caucus (Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson) oppose.

The Democrats have long had the reconciliation option on the table, and the progressive wing of the party (yours truly included) has for some time been urging the president and congressional leadership to use it. However, as a result of President Obama's desire to pass the health care bill under the guise of bipartisanship, the procedure had been put on the back burner.

Reid's announcement—and the support the President seems to be offering for the use of reconciliation—represents a welcome shift in Democratic strategy on the health care issue. Ever since President Obama made health care reform the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year, the reconciliation procedure has been available for him to pass meaningful health care reform. But by not taking advantage of this opportunity and instead caving in to Republicans and Democratic moderates, the president has capitulated on one of the most crucial issues to come before the United States Congress in the history the Union.

What the president has termed “bipartisanship” has devolved into outright appeasement of Republican demands, and it has come at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American economy. Soaring health care costs are a significant strain on not only individuals and families across America, but also upon the federal budget. If spending on Medicaid and Medicare continues at the current rate, these programs will increase in cost from 5% of our national GDP today to 20% of GDP in 2050. Rising health care costs are breaking the federal budget and contributing greatly to the already formidable federal deficit. Clearly, this is not an issue on which he can afford to compromise.

If the Massachusetts election has taught the president anything, it's that ordinary voters are worried about the desperate financial plight of many individual Americans and about the enormity federal deficit. It is these voters—not the Republicans—the president needs to appease, and he can do this by implementing real, substantive health care reform to reduce the burden of health care costs on American families and the American government. In order to do so, however, he needs to play some hardball politics.

There are promising indications that the president is ready to dig his heels in for a fight; he has written his own version of the bill—to be unveiled in a public brainstorming session on health care with the GOP next week—and seems prepared to move forward with it under the reconciliation procedure. Despite claims from the right wing that such a move represents an unprecedented and extremist “nuclear option,” there is strong precedent for such action, especially with regard to health care: in 1985, Congress used the reconciliation procedure to pass the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), which allowed employees leaving a firm to remain enrolled in their employer’s health care plan if they continued to pay premiums. Again in 1997, reconciliation was used to pass the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicare advantage, two programs which now provide benefits to more than 17 million Americans.

Had the president and Congress employed this policy months ago, they would have saved themselves a lot of time, energy and political capital. Had the President acted with dispatch in passing the health care reform bill, the Republicans would have had no opportunity to take control of the debate, defame the president and his allies, and push the Democratic Party into such disfavor with voters. However, the Democratic “bipartisan” strategy lent itself to delay, and over time, the President and his party simply lost control of the message.

But what's done is done. We can only hope that, this time, the president will have learned from his previous mistakes and will take swift action to pass a meaningful reform bill. To act in any other way would result in absolute disaster.

DAVID ZOPPO

Permit Me a Moment of Populist Rage...

2010-01-31T16:12:00.000-08:00

A recent report by Neil Barofsky, Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), found that the government bailout of financial institutions has actually made a future economic crisis more likely. The main reason for this is that the megabanks which embroiled the US economy in the crisis now have no incentive to reduce the risk they take on, because they know the government will bail them out again. Indeed, in testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in mid-January, the executives of major financial institutions—Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley—made clear their belief that, should any of them risk failure, the government would step in.

In short, while TARP was necessary, and while it did provide the funds necessary to keep credit moving in the financial markets, the government has still done nothing to change the banking practices that created the crisis in the first place. That some financial institutions are considered “too big to fail” is a frightening—and absurd—fact.

The government must take steps to regulate particularly risky practices—such as credit-default swaps, derivatives trading (a practice so complicated, I'm still trying to figure out how it works), mortgage-backed securities, and short selling—and to break up the nation's largest banks, lest the taxpayers be forced to bear the brunt of more Wall Street irresponsibility. The government also ought to improve oversight of the financial system, such as implementing minimum capital requirements for banks that take on certain risks. There is no sense in the government waiting for a crisis in order to intervene; if it was justified intervening in autumn 2008 to prevent a complete fiscal meltdown, it is surely justified now, in order to proactively prevent such a catastrophe.

The recent reforms proposed by President Obama and Congress are a good step toward achieving this goal. Based on the substance of his reforms, it is apparent that the President has finally thrown his weight behind chief economic adviser Paul Volcker, who, since the inception of the crisis, has advocated for these and other reforms of the financial system. Volcker is a reformer, not a radical; he recognizes the importance of having robust financial institutions in today's complex, global economy. The goal of his reforms are not to exact vengeance on the banks, but to make sure they do business more responsibly. Should they not conduct themselves responsibly—should they take on risks which they cannot support—their downfall ought not to threaten the nation’s financial security.

It is this practical, proactive and realistic approach to financial reform that President Obama and Congress must keep in mind when shaping legislation in the coming months. Not only will it improve the health of financial institutions in the United States, but it will also sit well with voters, who will perceive him as taking a stand against the monied interests who caused the crisis.

The premise of these reforms must be twofold: firstly, egregious risk-taking on the part of Wall Street must be limited and regulated by the government. Secondly, Wall Street institutions must never be allowed to grow to the point where their failure would result in the collapse of the entire Western economy.

DAVID ZOPPO

What Not to Wear

2010-01-31T16:09:00.000-08:00

It may seem silly, but the French Government is currently considering a law that will affect how women dress. After President Nicolas Sarkozy’s comment last June that burqas are “not welcome” in France, the country is now considering legislation that would ban women from wearing a burqa or niqab in state venues such as hospitals, public buildings, and on trains and buses. The proposed law would not extend to the public streets, but it is expected that the legislation may lead to similar edicts in stores as well. This law could effectively make women who wear the veil prisoners in their own neighborhood.

This proposal follows the 2004 ban of “ostentatious religious wear” in French public schools. The ban forbids students to wear large crosses or Stars of David, and even prohibits Muslim girls from wearing headscarves. The law was mostly used against headscarves and consequently met with a large outcry from the country’s sizeable Muslim population; numbering an estimated 3.5 million, France’s Muslim population is the largest in Western Europe. The 2004 law, however, provided Muslim families with options. As the law only forbids headscarves and other religious wear in public schools, parents could choose to send their children to private school. The proposed burqa ban would give women who wear the veil no choice but to discard it or stay at home.

Many question the logic behind the ban. Legislators claim that it is a security risk to have one’s face covered. President Sarkozy has stated that, beyond the issue of security, the practice goes against Western culture. He says that the West is open and the burqa and niqab are inherently closed. Some supporters of the law say it will be a good thing; they believe that many women are forced to wear the burqa by their husband or by other male family members, and that it indicates female subservience. But women who wear the burqa disagree. They state that they choose to wear the veil, some even against their husband’s wishes.

Still others suggest that the law stems from “Islamophobia,” with the knee-jerk association of Islam with terrorism. Many see a direct correlation between the full veil and extremism, and from there it’s not a far jump to terrorism. In France, however, this seems unfounded. Many of the 1,900 French women (approximately 0.038% of the French Muslin population) who wear the burqa or niqab are refugees who fled from the extremism in their home country.

So does the French government have the right to ban the burqa? Should the French government be able to dictate what women can and cannot wear, and to force citizens to alter their religious practices? It hardly seems either right or constitutional. The preamble of the French constitution affirms La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, or the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, which defines the “natural and imprescriptible rights of man" as "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.” It would seem, therefore, that women should have the freedom to wear a burqa if they choose. And whether or not Muslim women are wearing the burqa by choice or by order of their husband, well…that’s hardly something for the government to decide.

Should the French ban the burqa and niqab and deprive women of the right to practice their religion as they see fit, especially when they are not harming anyone else? Unless the French are willing to ignore what they themselves decreed as the natural rights of man, the burqa ban should not go into effect. France may be the fashion capital of the world, but the government should stay out of decision making in regards to what not to wear.

SARAH WENTZ

He's Not Dead Yet

2010-01-26T07:17:00.000-08:00

It is one year after the inauguration of President Obama, and his approval ratings have taken a severe hit. But does that mean his number is up? Are his hopes for re-election dead before he even begins campaigning?

Recent Gallup daily approval polls show that fewer than half of Americans approve of President Obama’s performance since he took office one year ago. Given the long-standing trend of a decrease in approval ratings through the second year of presidential terms, the future looks cloudy for President Obama. But there have been exceptions to the trend of falling approval ratings. Among recent presidents, both President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush actually saw a rise in their ratings during their second year. Many political analysts, however, do not believe that President Obama can do the same.

In light of the recent special election in Massachusetts, the media has suggested that the defeat of the Democratic candidate is due to dissatisfaction with President Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole. But that election is a whole different issue best left alone for the moment. Scott Brown’s election is noteworthy, however, as many claim that this Democratic defeat forecasts even bigger losses in the 2012 presidential election.

But not everyone is so quick to write off President Obama. Confidence in President Obama’s abilities to turn things around came from a surprising source: Mike Huckabee. The former Republican candidate suggested that the Massachusetts election signifies “the beginning of the end of the Democratic domination of Congress,” but he also says that it signifies “the beginning of the re-election of Barack Obama.” Huckabee makes a good point: in reaction to the special election, President Obama will have to change his course, a change that more than likely put him in a better place come 2012. It is a change he might not have made had the Democrats won Massachusetts and thus kept their filibuster-proof Senate majority

But I digress. The question remains: do low poll numbers now indicate a future Obama defeat? Perhaps. They’re certainly not a good sign, and they do forecast a difficult re-election. Yet his election to his current office was no easy feat either. Two years ago today, he had been discounted as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, let alone as a candidate in the general election. So can he do it…again? Can President Obama overcome the poor approval ratings and the political analysts who say he hasn’t a chance? Maybe. He certainly has a fair shot. After all, a lot can happen in two and a half years.

SARAH WENTZ

The Ignorance of the Supreme Court

2010-01-25T12:09:00.000-08:00

In the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court struck down campaign finance laws that banned corporate political spending on candidates in federal elections. Both the right and left have expressed outrage at the ruling, which, it is believed, will drastically increase the amount of money that corporations, unions and other interest groups spend to support or criticize federal candidates.

But despite all the outrage, one must ask: will the ruling really change anything? Though a great deal of campaign finance reform has taken place in America since the 1940s, the political system remains distorted in favor of elites, who have significantly more leverage than does the average American. Indeed, it could be said that the provision at issue in Citizens United did little to reduce the influence that corporations and special interests have in federal elections.

What we saw with Max Baucus during the health care debate is a perfect example: he received millions of dollars from insurance companies and hospitals to tailor the legislation to their benefit, while ignoring the demands of center-left and progressive Democrats for more radical changes like the public option. Campaign finance reform has done little to change the fundamental flaw in the democratic electoral system: namely, that those with the most money have the loudest voice.

Whatever the effect of the ruling, it's clear that the Court was not interested in addressing the problem; their arguments focused on the supposed “chilling” effect that the McCain-Feingold Act had on a corporation's free exercise of political speech. Their reasoning goes like this: according to the first amendment, the government does not have the authority to restrict speech based on the character of the speaker or the content of their speech; based on a long line of Supreme Court precedents, corporations are entitled to first amendment protection. As such, the Court concluded that McCain-Feingold's restrictions on corporate spending are unconstitutional because they restrict the ability of a certain class—big business—to express their political beliefs.

This is a stock argument against the ban; but read further into the Court's opinion, and you will note an important distinction that considerably weakens their reasoning. The ruling in Citizens United—that the government may not restrict corporate spending during campaigns—applies only to a corporation's independent expenditures on a candidate, not to their direct contributions to that same candidate. Corporations are still forbidden to directly contribute to candidates, but they may spend as much money as they like to promote or criticize said candidate. For instance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield cannot contribute to Harry Reid's opponent; but, after this ruling, they can spend as much as they like on their own ads criticizing Harry Reid and promoting his opponent.

The distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures is crucial to the Court's argument. The Court admits that direct contributions from interest groups to political candidates fosters corruption, but when these groups make independent expenditures —for instance, a commercial for or against a candidate—there is somehow no threat or appearance of corruption. To quote Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion, “simply because speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.”

Are you kidding me? What is an “independent expenditure” if not an indirect contribution to a candidate? The Court's argument rests on the fallacious assumption that only direct contributions from corporations to candidates foster corruption, and that any independent expenditures—though they have the same effect as direct contributions—do not create such a problem. Proponents of the Court's decision would argue that even after this ruling, campaign finance law remains the same: you still can’t buy a vote.

But the fact of the matter remains: it's not necessary for a corporation to provide direct financial support to a candidate in order for corruption to exist. Out of necessity, the relationship between interest groups and political figures has evolved beyond that point: not only is it illegal for politicians to receive direct contributions from these groups, but it's also unpopular among the American public. Americans have always despised the idea that someone should receive privileged treatment as a result of anything but their own hard work, and the populist rage against the elite—the banks, the politicians, the executives—reflects this attitude. So business and government have had to adapt their relationship to the point where a vote can be bought without even a penny being exchanged. The fundamental flaw in the Court's ruling is its frightening misunderstanding of the nature of corruption in contemporary American politics.

DAVID ZOPPO

Two Cheers for Cronyism

2010-01-18T11:40:00.000-08:00

Who can you trust? In politics, the answer increasingly seems to be "nobody." The newly-released book "Game Change," written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is Exhibit A. Halperin and Heilemann's gossipy behind-the-scenes look at the 2008 election is loaded with juicy quotes plucked from "unnamed sources," "anonymous staffers," and "campaign higher-ups," each one desperately trying to spin the truth to their own advantage.

So how are politicians supposed to act when everything they say or do might eventually find its way into a tell-all memoir? Frank Bruni explores the issue in a though-provoking New York Times article.

The biggest problem, as Bruni rightly points out, is a lack of loyalty. In the past two decades we have seen the rise of a new political class, a gang of mercenary advisers who hop from candidate to candidate in search of the big score. True, they are not completely unprincipled; most work only one side of the political spectrum, for either Republicans or Democrats. But beyond that, they have no connection to their candidate other than a paycheck. Think of Steve Schmidt, brought in to advise John McCain, or Chris Lehane, formerly of the Edward campaign.

Maybe, then, cronyism isn't such a bad thing after all. Maybe a candidate should surround himself with close friends rather than hired guns. Yes, they might not look as flashy, and they also might cause a certain ideological cocooning. But at least the candidate's friends know his strengths and weaknesses. They won't try to make him something he's not. Plus, if a candidate is more comfortable with his advisers, he'll be more comfortable in general. Can you really share your feelings with a campaign manager you hired two weeks ago?

Two cheers for cronyism--at least the cronies are usually loyal.

WILL SCHULTZ

Anglischism

2009-12-03T18:10:00.000-08:00

Somewhere I remember reading, or at least just totally making up, that one of the basic tenets of happiness through Buddhism is accepting the world and getting over it.

Roughly translated, that means: “Eh….”

I’ve tried applying this to various parts of life (the Bush years were very helpful in this department) and am using the attitude to deal with the current goings-on in the Anglican Communion. As an Episcopalian, a member of that big religious family that comprises the various denominational children begotten of Henry VIII and a stubborn Pope, I’m in the loop every time someone gets unhappy. That happens a lot.
In brief, it’s 2009, there’s a black president, women are people too, we’ve stopped burning gays as fuel, and some folks are incensed.

Pun intended.

Specifically, the Roman Catholic church is making it easier for dissatisfied Anglicans to make a break for Rome:

Am I worried that this is the end of my denomination? That massive flocks of Anglicans will suddenly start saying their Hail Marys even louder (I’m hoping I’m in good stead – I always use the blue candles around her icon)? That trumpets will sound and my home parish will come a-tumblin’ down?

You mean that out of an Anglican Communion of 77 million people, someone’s not happy? Well, that’s to be expected.

“Eh….”

Really, I’ve come to the realization that it’s impossible to make everyone happy. Even if 999 people were soaked in juicy bliss with rainbows shining out their… that last 1 person would be ticked because everyone else was being so damn content. And that’s why being at Disney World too long pisses me off.

So I’m sorry not everyone’s happy, and I try really hard maximize world jolliness, but when I understand that no matter what I do, no one’s going to be totally happy, I can only muster one word… “Eh…”

It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I just really don’t care all that much. My apathy is my greatest strength. I mean, when MTV can’t find eight people that can peacefully cohabitate on “Real World,” it sets a pretty low standard for harmony in the third largest Christian community on earth. Accepting that there’s no way to ultimately make everybody happy, we have to figure out what to do.

Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter, and I suddenly feel enlightened.

“Ommm….”

See, no matter what we do, we’re going to lose some people. We’ve always lost people. Every time we adopt a new prayer book we lose people. At some point somebody lost people when they dropped doing their whole service in Latin… (Yeah, I’m talking at you, Pope Benedict). We lost people when we let blacks in. Now we’re losing people because we let women play too. If we let more gays be clergy, we’re gonna lose even more people.

But if we aren’t accepting of gays, we’re still gonna lose people – them and a bunch of other folks who’ve figured out it’s 2009, there’s a black president, women are people too….We’re always going to lose some people, and we’re always gonna gain others.

As is, we’ve got some folks who’ve left. But we’ve also got some folks who’ve come into the church because we have a more accepting stance on their innate sexuality – i.e. we don’t spend every Sunday morning damning them.

By my guessing, it’ll come out a wash and there’ll more harm, heartache, and heartburn come from navel-gazing and second-guessing ourselves on how many gay angels can’t dance on the head of a straight pin than from our denomination just deciding to walk the right path and not looking back.

What the hell – when in doubt, try doing the right thing.

And sub-Saharan Africa’s got a problem?

Eh… what else is new.

JOHN DERRICK

The Internet Cocoon

2009-11-01T09:43:00.000-08:00

The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert writes an interesting piece on how the internet contributes to the rise of political extremism. That might seem a little counterintuitive; after all, the internet brings everyone closer together, right? Well, right...and wrong. Yes, it does bring people together. Unfortunately, it unites the same kinds of people--it allows conservatives to surround themselves with other conservatives and liberals with other liberals.

They end up strengthening one another's biases. It's a well known fact that if you put two conservatives--or two liberals--in a room together and get them started talking politics, they'll end up in a never-ending cycle of agreement. The first guy says he doesn't like Barack Obama; the second guy, wanting to prove his worth as a conservative, disagrees: he HATES Barack Obama. And so it continues from there.

The internet, then, allows not only for the growth of extremism, but also to the spread of malicious and downright false political rumors. Kolbert cites the "birther" movement as a perfect example. There's plenty of evidence out there definitively proving that Barack Obama was born in the United States and not in Kenya or Switzerland or wherever. But because birthers tend to frequent only hard-core conservative websites, they never see this evidence. Even if they do they dismiss it as a liberal propaganda. These kinds of bizarre political movements couldn't exist without the internet.

But I think Kolbert makes a serious mistake when she argues that this paranoid extremism is a purely right-wing phenomenon. She writes:

Several decades ago, a detachment of the American right cut itself loose from reason, and it has been drifting along happily ever since. If the birthers are more evidently kooky than the global-warming “skeptics” or the death-panellers or the supply-siders or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they are, in their fundamental disregard for the facts, actually mainstream...The historian Richard Hofstadter’s description of the far right in the era of Barry Goldwater could apply equally well today: “I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”

Sorry, Miss Kolbert, but Hofstadter's argument was outdated two decades ago. The conservative movement is just a troglodytic reaction to the modern age. We're not all tin-foiled-hatted kooks on the lookout for black helicopters. I would add that political paranoia has plenty of practitioners on the left. A liberal friend of mine once solemnly informed me that Halliburton was building "concentration camps" in the Great Plains to house dissidents. And what is the 9/11 "truther" movement, if not the left-wing equivalent of the birthers?

Stupidity knows no color, creed, or ideology. There are stupid liberals and stupid conservatives. There are stupid libertarians, stupid anarchists, stupid socialists, and stupid centrists. That's how politics works and always will work.

WILL SCHULTZ

The Tea Party Line

2009-10-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

It was supposedly Benjamin Disraeli who called conservatives "the stupid party." So far this year, Republicans have been doing their best to prove him 100% right. For proof, check out the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Though the 23rd narrowly voted for Obama in 2008, it's still Republican territory. GOP Rep. John McHugh was re-elected with 65% of the vote in 2008.

But that was then and this is now, and now doesn't look so good for the GOP. Doug Hoffman, a former Republican, has broken with the party and is now running as the Conservative Party candidate. He's getting support from the usual conservative suspects: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, et cetera, et cetera. Hoffman might just cost Republicans the election a recent poll shows him splitting the conservative vote with Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate, giving Democrat Bill Owens a narrow lead.

This is why talk of a GOP revival in 2010 is, for the moment, highly overrated. The Republicans will never win until they get their ideological house in order. Do they want to move towards the center to win back moderates? Or would they rather move right and re-energize conservatives? It's hardly a recent debate; the conservative and moderate wings of the GOP have been duking it out for decades. But the party's never been in worse shape than it is now. They need to come to some kind of consensus, or else risk being wiped out for the third straight election.

It's decision time for the GOP. Right or center? Moderate or conservative? They don't need to come up with a final answer. But they need an answer. And they need it fast. Only a year to go before the midterm test. Tick-tock...

WILL SCHULTZ

The "Don't Give Me That Crap" Theory of Jurisprudence

2009-10-19T12:41:00.001-07:00

I have a comprehensive theory of recent United States Supreme Court church and state jurisprudence.

You have to be a First Amendment geek to know how ballsy that statement is. Really, it’s pretty confusing – why is one ten commandments display judged kosher while another is condemned as meshugana? I hope I used that right… go easy on the gentile, I’m a shegetz.

Very recently the Supremes--of the John Roberts variety, not the Diana Ross kind--heard a case about a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert… because when the Death Valley VFW post wants people to ignore a monument, they go all out.

Why does anyone care? It’s in the shape of a cross. There’s been a cross-shaped memorial there since 1934, but it's only now that someone has gotten upset about it. So now there’s a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert in a plywood box.

What will the Gang of Nine do? I’ve got some ideas about these sorts of cases. I call them the “Don’t Give Me That Crap” view of jurisprudence. Somehow, this theory didn’t fly in the church/state course I took in law school. I think I used to much reality and not enough Latin.

Here’s the way it works – say you’ve got two ten commandment displays at two different courthouses. One of them is erected by conservative Christians intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because they think that the United States isn’t Christian enough. They try this case in the US Supreme Court building, which has a frieze of Moses and the ten commandments over the entrance.

Go figure.

The second display has been around forever and nobody’s really cared, but now somebody, hungry to be oppressed (I imagine them at home, desperately sanding “In God We Trust” from all their coinage and being deliberately unthankful on Thanksgiving) is intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because...they think the United States is too Christian.

Why, on the same day, does the Court declare commandments one through ten out of bounds and eleven thru twenty fair play? Well, the Supremes don’t like getting jabbed by some little tattletale troublemaker. Under my theory, the Court has adopted a “Don’t Give Me That Crap” approach: don’t go around looking for a fight and then come crying to the Court because you want a nation of theocracy/Godless heathenism – don’t give me that crap.

What Justice Breyer, the swing vote in these cases, really wants to do when some Bible-thumper-who-can’t-stand-the-existence-of-atheists-and-Episcopalians or zealot-atheist-(or Episcopalian like me)-who-won’t-deal-with-conservative-Christians tries to give him an earful is to come down from the bench and jam the fork up the offending party’s...well, you know. But he can’t, so he just votes against them. And after Breyer is done with the utensil, Scalia wants to take it and stick it in their throat.

Under my theory, if you’ve got a legitimate beef, the Supremes will do you right. The desert war memorial cross case has some interesting issues in play, and I’m curious to see which ones the Court latch onto. Regardless of which way they swing, I’m sure I’ll find a way to spin their decision to say they’re enforcing my theory – I’m a lawyer.

But if you go to the Court just to gripe and moan, they’ll send you packing with a fork up your….

Screwing Over the Huddled Masses

2009-10-12T17:36:00.000-07:00

We’re being immigration visa jerks and that’s gonna hurt us in the long run.

America’s always done well by taking everybody else’s best people and making them ours – Einstein, Von Braun, my mother.

Okay, those were all Germans, but I’m sure there are good people from other countries who also came to the US.

It works out well for the United States – we get brilliant physicists, rockets that take us to the moon, and me. Who can complain about that? We attract smart, hardworking folks to our industries, universities, and culture, and milk them for all their worth.

Seriously, folks, we won WWII with a guy named Eisenhower. Doesn’t sound like a Native American name to me – we used a German to whup the Germans.

But part of this system is us being willing to work with foreigners. That’s pronounced “Furrnurs.”

Better yet, try saying it without any vowels.

If we’re gonna brain drain the rest of the world, we have to be willing to play the immigration game and have a relatively open (one-way) door to the international neighborhood (and bars on the windows). If we close the door too tightly, Prof. Wu will go unravel genetics at Cambridge and Dr. Schneider will go open his company in France.

Instead, we’re being tools.

I know a British woman doing public interest work here in the states, trying to fix things we’ve screwed up for free, and we’re making it an unholy pain in the arse for her to stay more than a few months.

And that’s how we treat our friends! C’mon – we’re allies with the UK. They’ve been our closest friends in the global game of Risk ever since we kicked them out. They’re the only ones who’ve had the pluck/bad judgment to stick with us in Iraq in any force!

Then there’s a German buddy of mine who wanted to come study here. There was a metric tonne of paperwork, and when even a German complains about the paperwork, that’s a lot.

My buddy had to make an in person visit to the consulate in Munich – I dunno, to show folks he didn’t look like a terrorist or something – but the best I’ve heard was about some foreign academics at a local university. They couldn’t apply to renew their visas till, say, two months out from the expiration date. But it’d take the government six months to process the paperwork….

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” and screw em."

JOHN DERRICK

Thoughts on Obama's Nobel Prize

2009-10-11T20:28:00.000-07:00

A few days have passed, and we've all had time to think over the meanings and implications of Barack Obama's new Nobel Peace Prize. Most people are still puzzled. Why him? Why now? Most--but certainly not all--pundits think that the award came much too early. A few think he should turn it down. Others say that, no, he really did deserve it.

My reaction? I thought of Notre Dame football. No, wait, I can explain! Think back a few years, to when Ty Willingham was head coach of the Fighting Irish. Notre Dame's storied program looked on the verge of collapse. Willingham's biggest crime was that he couldn't beat arch-rival USC. Each and every time the two teams played, Notre Dame took an unholy beating. After three years of this, the school kicked out Willingham and brought in Charlie Weis.

Weis also lost to USC. But--here's the thing--he almost won. That's what made the difference: it looked like Notre Dame was at least trying to win. That was enough to land Weis a multi-million dollar contract for a gazillion years.

So it goes with politics. Bush is Willingham and Obama is Weis. Obama hasn't actually done anything, but he seems to be trying. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts rather than achievements. Is that a good or a bad thing? You decide. But be warned--the Weis experiment hasn't worked out so well for the Irish.

OK, one last thing. For an interestingly contrarian take on the Nobel, read David von Drehle's piece in Time. I don't know if I agree, but it's a very thought-provoking argument.

WILL SCHULTZ

Change for China

2009-09-30T07:58:00.000-07:00

With all of the discussion of energy saving this and green that, what are people around the world actually doing to combat global warming? The UN Summit for Climate Change met this past Tuesday, September 22, at the UN headquarters in New York in hopes of drafting a treaty proposal to be signed in December at the UN Climate Conference. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who chaired the summit, stressed that “now is the moment to act in common cause” to create a greener world and to aid developing countries in reducing emissions.

This summit has led President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao to actually agree on something. Although China currently has the highest carbon dioxide emissions in the world, Hu promised that Chinese greenhouse gas emissions would slow within the next ten years. China plans to use renewable resources to generate 15 percent of its energy, and further intends to plant over 300,000 square kilometers of trees. This commitment to cleaner energy comes as a surprise to most of the international community, as China has primarily focused on maintaining its economic growth rather than protecting its environment. Hu did not give any details about how China is going to decrease emissions, causing many countries to doubt China’s sincerity.

The United States is among these disbelievers. Although the United States produces the second-highest amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, it is asking for exact figures explaining what China is going to do. But there’s a whiff of hypocrisy here--Obama failed to give any concrete figures of his own. This new policy from China has now “added pressure on the United States and other developed countries to accept deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions”. In response, President Obama has tried to put the pressure back on China by arguing that rapidly developing nations “will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own” (guardian.co.uk).

Although some countries may not believe it, much of the world is applauding China’s actions. Al Gore and UN Chief Ki-Moon have both lauded China’s proposal. This is a large yet necessary step towards doing something about global climate change. China is finally moving in the right direction, no longer using its developing status as an excuse. In light of these high expectations, it will be interesting to see what becomes of President Hu’s plans at the convention in Copenhagen this December. Maybe the world is finally moving together in the right direction.

LUCY EMERSON

Jonah Goldberg and Happy Warriors

2009-09-29T17:42:00.000-07:00

Last night, Carolina hosted a speech by Jonah Goldberg, conservative pundit and author of the bestseller “Liberal Fascism.” Say what you will about Goldberg, but he gives a darn good speech. The crowd interrupted him with applause more than once—especially when he declared that “the GOP needs to stop being pro-business and start being pro-market.” Everyone in the crowd, especially the libertarians, went nuts.

One of Goldberg’s lines really stuck with me. He said that conservatives need to be “happy warriors.” I think he’s right. For the past couple years, the prevailing mood on the right has been an unpleasant mix of bitterness, grimness and self-pity. No wonder the party’s in trouble—if the people already in the party seem to hate it, why would anyone else want to sign up?

The GOP has always been the anti-government party—or, at least, the not-quite-as-big government party—so it’s no surprise that its elected officials are a little ambivalent about their jobs. They return to their home districts, rail against Washington, and then go back to their offices in DC. No wonder there’s some cognitive dissonance. That doesn’t mean, though, that they have to hate their jobs.

The most successful Republican in modern history, Ronald Reagan, projected a spirit of optimism. He was Hope and Change while Barack Obama was still in college. He was the ultimate Happy Warrior. That’s what the GOP needs, I think. They don’t necessarily need to go back to the policies of Reagan. What they should be wishing for is someone with Reagan’s smile, his charm, his sense of confidence. Only then will the Republicans have any chance of recapturing the White House.

WILL SCHULTZ

Rights for Refugees?

2009-09-18T11:47:00.000-07:00

A refugee crisis is brewing in the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar. The ruling military junta has destroyed thousands of homes, forcing more and more Burmese to flee the country every day. Many seek asylum across the border in Thailand; as of August 2009, there are roughly 133,000 documented refugees living in 9 camps. The Thai government has tried to ignore the problem and, when confronted with pleas to give more support to the refugees, it argues that some of its own citizens are living in worse conditions. Yet Thailand is actually one of the more accommodating countries in the region, accepting more refugees than any other Southeast Asian country. Most of the aid for the camps must therefore come from NGOs like the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC).

The Thai government offers little to no protection for the refugees, leaving matters in the hands of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The huge influx of Burmese refugees means that the UNHCR has been given a greater role along the Thai-Burmese border. They are the only organization to focus on refugee protection, but due to a rocky relationship with the Thai government, even this goal is difficult to achieve. Thai authorities believes that the UNHCR is overstepped its boundaries; furthermore, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a key legal document that defines refugee rights. The Thai government has never given the UNHCR access to other groups in need, such as the Lao refugees at the Huai Nam Khao camp. In Thailand, local integration has never been possible; locals regard the refugees as illegal immigrants. Although the refugees’ basic needs are met, they do not have much freedom. It is illegal for them to leave the camps, which overflow with problems like domestic violence and substance abuse. If the refugees do leave, they are subject to arrest and deportation by Thai authorities. The UNHCR is helpless to do anything about this, as the Thai government has control over the camps and over immigration policy

The plight of the Burmese illustrates the enormous problems facing the UNHCR. Because refugee camps around the globe are in dire need of resources, and because the UN is supposed to remain neutral, the UNHCR must pick and choose which refugees will receive aid—and which will go hungry. There is also a money problem: UNHCR only receives 1% of its funding from the General Assembly, while 99% comes from other donors. The United States is one of UNHCR’s primary sources of funding, which has led to fears that the UN will favor American policy on refugees. Others fear that the refugees will become dependent on aid from the UN. Some camps have better living conditions than the refugees would receive in their home countries.

In order to provide protection for the Burmese refugees, UNHCR’s goal is to provide third-country resettlement, as repatriation to Myanmar is not possible. They also seek to reduce violence in the camps and to make it easier for non-Burmese asylum seekers to obtain refugee status. There is still much to be done regarding the refugee situation in Thailand. Other nearby countries such as China are only now realizing the gravity of the situation; they have to face the sobering fact that the end to this crisis is not near.

For Further Information on UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

LUCY EMERSON

Challenging Burr

2009-09-12T13:09:00.000-07:00

As of Tuesday, September 9, 2009, it’s official: Elaine Marshall is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Richard Burr (R-NC), making her the first top-tier candidate to enter the race. Other potential top-tier Democrats, such as Attorney General Roy Cooper, U.S. Congressman Heath Shuler, U.S. Congressman Bob Etheridge, U.S. Congressman Brad Miller, U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre, former State Treasurer Richard Moore, and Lt. Governor Walter Dalton have declined to run. (It’s worth noting that a similar situation arose in 2008, when well-known Democrats declined to face then-senator Elizabeth Dole. National Democratic leaders eventually settled on state senator Kay Hagan, who, despite an initial lack of name recognition, went on to win the November election by nine points, 53%-44%.)

So who is Elaine Marshall anyway, and why should we care that she’s running for Senate?

Elaine Marshall is North Carolina's Secretary of State and has been since 1996, when she became the first woman to hold statewide office. Her first election was her most notable, as she faced NASCAR legend Richard Petty in the general election. Marshall won in spite of Petty’s fame and has been re-elected three times since, most recently in 2008 (Marshall’s electoral history can be found at the end of this post). Before becoming Secretary of State, Marshall served four years in the North Carolina State Senate, representing Wake County’s 15th District.

This isn’t Elaine Marshall’s first try for U.S. Senate, though. She ran in the 2002 Democratic primary, but came in third to nominee (and current president of the University of North Carolina system) Erskine Bowles and state senator Dan Blue in a nine-way primary race. But 2010 isn't 2002. The political climate is vastly different. Marshall is the only prominent Democrat to enter the primary, for one; more importantly, in the 2008 election North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes went to Barack Obama—the first time NC voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Marshall doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up, though. Durham lawyer Kenneth Lewis is already in the race, and former state senator Cal Cunningham has expressed interest in joining the field. Lewis has not held political office, but he has worked behind the scenes on several political campaigns.

Despite Marshall’s edge in experience, initial polling for the Senate race doesn’t favor any candidate. North Carolina polling firm Public Policy Polling conducted their most recent poll (PDF) on August 14, which shows:

• Burr leading Cunningham, 43-28
• Burr leading Lewis, 43-27
• Burr leading Marshall, 43-31

So Marshall may not increase Democrats’ chances right away, but her experience and her relationship with activist Democrats in North Carolina may give her the fundraising advantage. This will be crucial in toppling a sitting incumbent.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, history is on his/her side despite the polls. No sitting senator has been re-elected to North Carolina’s Class 3 Senate seat since Sam Ervin in 1968. Richard Burr’s looking to break the trend, but as this race develops, will he find himself in an uphill battle?

For more information on Elaine Marshall, check her profile at the News & Observer and/or her Secretary of State biography.

Electoral History

2008 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (2,316,903)
• Jack Sawyer 43% (1,762,928)

2004 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (1,911,585)
• Jay Rao 43% (1,423,109)

2000 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 54% (1,512,076)
• Harris Durham Blake 46% (1,265,654)

1996 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 53% (1,333,994)
• Richard Petty 45% (1,126,701)

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Scandal in Louisiana?

2009-09-08T08:33:00.001-07:00

Since November 5, 2008, political junkies and analysts alike have been discussing the possibilities of 2012, focusing on the potential makeup of the Republican field. Various names surfaced, including now-disgraced governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina and former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Another name, though, received significant mention earlier this year—Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Jindal gained this attention after he was selected to deliver the Republican response to Obama’s first address to Congress.

Jindal’s name vanished, however, as discussions about 2012 quieted and as President Obama’s legislative plans concerning the economy and healthcare took center stage. Yet Jindal’s name continued to surface in some political circles, especially in discussions about the future of the GOP.

In a party plagued by scandal and confusion—such as John Ensign’s affair, Mark Sanford’s affair, and Sarah Palin’s mysterious and unorthodox resignation as governor of Alaska—Jindal’s name offered a promising alternative. Jindal’s brief national appearance gave him greater name recognition, which, coupled with three years as a congressman and his current post as governor, made him seem like a viable candidate.

But there’s a new wrinkle in the story. Jindal was recently accused of using taxpayer money for political purposes. He spent $45,000 in state funds to visit parishes that he lost in the 2003 gubernatorial race—leading to charges that he is trying to shore up his electoral support.

This action has added Jindal’s name to the list of so-called fiscal conservatives whose actions say the opposite of their words. According to a report from the Associated Baptist Press, Jindal spent the cash financing helicopter trips all across the state. The expense was discovered by the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, a preacher at Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana, and president of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization which (according to their website) “celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism.” Gaddy wrote an open letter to Jindal on September 1, calling on the governor to reimburse the state for the expenses.

Jindal’s actions have not yet created a major scandal, but any proverbial skeletons in proverbial closets can create problems for politicians, especially those seeking the highest office in the nation. A statement issued by Jindal’s spokeswoman, supposedly in response to Gaddy, only makes things worse:

“This political group opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches.”

The problem with this statement is two-fold in that a) it fails to address the issue of wasting taxpayer dollars—something Jindal has continued to campaign against—and b) it goes into dangerous territory by attacking a reputable organization that promotes religious freedom—a key right outlined in our Constitution. Jindal’s counterattack isn’t even a substantial argument. Millions of Americans support gay marriage, and Rev. Gaddy countered the statement by saying that it was a mischaracterization of his organization. The Interfaith Alliance did not oppose the National Day of Prayer—only the group which organized it. Concerning the display of crosses for fallen policemen, Gaddy said the spokeswoman was referencing a lawsuit in Utah in which a panel ruled that crosses were secular symbols

Clearly, Governor Jindal has made some missteps here, like many of his Republican colleagues. Perhaps he isn’t the savior the GOP has been looking for after all. The 2012 election remains several years away, but if Jindal does intend to run, these are not the steps he should be taking if he hopes to topple an incumbent president.

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Welcome Back!

2009-09-08T08:32:00.001-07:00

Welcome back! Today kicks off the return of The Hill’s blog. We have an all-new blogging staff, so expect plenty of new posts in the weeks ahead.

For those of you not familiar with The Hill, we are the University of North Carolina’s first, best and only non-partisan political review. We’re dedicated to analyzing the latest trends in politics and public policy, both at home and abroad.

Crisis in the Middle East? That’s our beat. Obama trying to push a new bill through Congress? We’re on it. The Hill tells you what’s happening and why; it gives the history behind current events, and tries to predict what the future holds. All non-partisan, of course. We don’t do bias.

The Hill’s blog is a little different. Because the magazine appears only twice each semester, it’s hard for us to keep up with breaking news. That’s what this blog is for—instantaneous commentary and feedback. Check it for weekly updates from our talented team of writers and bloggers.

The past few months have seen plenty of high-profile news stories: Sotomoyar’s confirmation. Specter’s defection. Kennedy’s death. Elections and riots in Iran. Warfare on the floor of Congress. From now on, The Hill will be able to give stories like this the coverage they deserve.

Though The Hill is scrupulously non-partisan, that doesn’t mean we’re bland. Our bloggers won’t simply report the news. They’re here to give their opinion, and they will give it, freely and plentifully. They cover the entire political spectrum, from left to right and everything in between. We’re nothing if not balanced.

So enjoy! This blog is here for you, the reader. Check in to see what’s happening in the world of politics. See what our bloggers think. Leave your own comments. Discuss. Debate. And, as always, be sure to read The Hill.

International Politics, Chicago Style

2009-04-27T07:31:00.001-07:00

The now admittedly doomed (and therefore sometimes desperate) John McCain for President 2008 campaign did its very best to paint Obama as a doe-eyed idealist, prepared neither to lead the free world nor to face down the world's fiercest dictators. Obama's interactions with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the Summit of the Americas last week seemed to confirm some of those fears. Pat Buchanan recently wrote a scathing article in which he called Obama an "apologist," unwilling to defend his country. Obama's inaction even caught the attention of some on the left, such as Eugene Robinson, who urged Obama to "slap back." But there are signs that Obama's Chicago past have produced a hardened politician, albeit one that doesn't fit the inside-the-beltway profile one would expect in a President.

First, there is a thoughtful post by the ever-impressive Daniel Larison at The Week, which interprets Obama's behavior at the Summit as calculating and wise. Second, there is speculation that Obama is playing hardball with the new Israeli government, something virtually no US President has had the courage to do since Eisenhower. Allow me to explain.

For those of you who missed it (and missing it was simple, because the US media completely ignored it), Jeff Stein of CQ Politics broke a story alleging that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) had been overheard (via NSA wiretap) promising an Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" into an ongoing case, in which two AIPAC lobbyists have been accused of spying on the US government. In return, the Israeli agent promised to lobby Nancy Pelosi to make Harman the chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Quite the quid pro quo, especially considering it would essentially mean that a foreign government had played a major role in installing the leader of a vital intelligence oversight body. But what does all this have to do with Obama?

The story goes on to say that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales aborted an FBI investigation into Harman, because "he needed Harman’s help defending the administration’s warrantless wiretap program." So the case was dead. How are we coming to know about it now?

Enter Philip Giraldi's post on the American Conservative Blog:

"My spook friends are speculating wildly but the theory that seems to make the most sense is that the White House is extremely angry about the Netanyahu government’s trashing of the peace process and also by his appointing of former Mossad spies Naor Gilon and Uzi Arad to senior positions, as both were involved in the Larry Franklin/AIPAC case. The Administration is apparently seeking to demonstrate that it will not be pushed around by Bibi and is showing that it has teeth by taking aim at a prominent Dem politician who stepped over the line in demonstrating her enthusiasm to play ball with AIPAC. This is pretty much speculation at this point, but I have heard from several independent sources that the White House is extremely vexed with Netanyahu and is going to tell him that his delaying tactics on substantive negotiations with the Palestinians will not be acceptable, so it might seem likely that a little pushback is taking place. Whether the Obamas will allow Harman to walk the plank remains to be seen."

Though this is entirely speculative, it seems plausible. The Obama team has shown that it's willing to let other Democrats take the fall in order to strengthen their position (read: Chris Dodd and the AIG bonuses). And the Israeli government seems to be responding in kind, with the new Foreign Minister saying that "the US will accept any Israeli policy decision." We may never know if this is what's really going on, but it's worth considering.

-MATT TUCKER

Obama's War

2009-04-14T17:40:00.000-07:00

Sad as it is, one of the most profound observations so far about Obama’s short tenure as President came from a Tweet by Iowa's 75-year old senior Senator, Chuck Grassley. While Obama was announcing a new ‘surge’ of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, Grassley tweeted:

Now it bcomes Obama War Not Bush war any longer

To be sure, Obama’s move wasn’t exactly a surprise. He made a significant speech during the general election outlining his vision for a more vigorous war in Afghanistan, and he suggested the possibility of attacking Pakistan during a primary debate (he's continued and intensified controversial strikes by Predator drones in the border regions, and his focus on the internal affairs of Pakistan suggests further involvement is possible). Despite the fact that he campaigned on the issue, Sen. Grassley is right: these actions have transferred ownership of the Afghan war from Bush to Obama.

So what are we to make of this "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan"? Let's take a look at the speech Obama made, where he announced the "surge":

1. One of the most significant parts of the plan was an appeal to our European allies, NATO members in particular, to contribute, saying that it was not only an "American problem." However, NATO committed nearly no new troops after Obama's trip to Europe earlier this month.
2. Obama, in what is arguably a vast improvement over Bush's execution of military expeditions, defined an explicit goal: "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan , and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
3. Obama repeatedly emphasized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked in this conflict, though I'm afraid that conflicts with the historical reality of their relationship. According to Dr. Amin Tarzi, who spoke at UNC earlier this month, the Afghani and Pakistani governments do not recognize each other. This complex reality is just one crippling legacy of British colonialism in the region (more on that in a later post).
4. Obama takes a page from the liberal book of international politics in emphasizing the need for economic security and education. Dr. Tarzi said this will only work if the people of the region don't know the US is backing these efforts. As former CIA officer Michael Scheuer said in his piece, "Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die," "absence makes the Afghan heart grow stronger," implying that the US's footprint should be as light as possible when possible.

Given these objectives, what are the facts on the ground that we can anticipate?

First, McClatchy Newspapers reported last month that multiple Islamic militant groups reached a unity agreement in which they agreed to put aside their differences and focus on repelling the new troop surge.

Second, the President Zardari just signed a peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban, committing the Pakistani government to enforcing shari'a in the Swat region. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this is already emboldening the militias and giving them new ground on which to train.

These two events are particularly frightening, especially in light of this video, which shows how hostile and heavily armed people in the Northwestern region of Pakistan are.

There are certainly more things to consider about "AfPak," and I intend to write a fairly regular post about the developments in the region, in addition to presenting some of the religious, social, and geopolitical history so that we can better understand what is actually going on there.

-MATT TUCKER

Environmentalism

2009-04-11T21:02:00.000-07:00

Environmentalism doesn’t have to mean cold showers and warm beer: sometimes it can be just a matter of getting our heads out of our… and doing the little things we should be doing anyways.

I had a friend in college who would leave the fan on in his dorm room while he was at class and such. I asked him why he was wasting the energy – a fan doesn’t even keep things any cooler, it just moves the air around and feels good when you’re in the room – and he replied that it wasn’t his electricity. Maybe he was just being sarcastic, but I don’t recall him then turning off the fan. I do remember that he’s a wonderful, swell, smart guy who’s probably reading this.

On a related note, these days I’m doing a little research into mercury advisories for fish. Apparently, wild catfish in NC, including in the municipal pond I fish out of at Anderson Park in Carrboro, have so much mercury in them that there’s an advisory against me eating more than one serving a week. That’s just six ounces. And for “women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children under age 15” the advisory says “Do not eat” (that was boldface in the original, http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/safefish.html).

How is this related to my friend with the fan? Well, coal power plants, like the ones that produce the hunk of our electricity, also produce mercury that billows up into the air, drops down into our ponds, gets ingested by fish and then eaten by us.

I’m pretty sure that my friend isn’t responsible for the exact molecules of mercury in the last catfish I caught, but I think if enough people were willing to take the extra second and a half a darn worth of caring to turn off their fans, lights, TVs… when not needed, then I might be able to maybe eat two servings a week of catfish.

Whether we like it or not, we’re all connected and each of us affects everyone else on Earth.
Darn, that’s deep.
So please stop being such …holes.
Darn, that’s honest.

I’m not saying (as I type this on a laptop in a well-lit, climate-controlled office) that we don’t need electricity. I’m not advocating people make major, martyr-ific sacrifices in their lives – going to bed at sundown, bumping into things in the dark, reverting back to some sort of 15th century, pre-industrial level of suckiness.

But is it all that hard to turn off the freakin’ fan?
Instead of a cold shower, how about taking a minute to install one of the low-flow shower heads some folks are giving away these days. Instead of drinking warm beer, how about folks saving electricity, and money, by not heating their places to 80 degrees in the winter and cooling to 60 in the summer?

If you’re going to drive ten miles to the gym to hop on the treadmill then swing by the tanning salon on the way home, griping about gas prices the whole way, couldn’t you just go for a walk on a sunny day?

These are some lessons I learned from my friend with the fan. Failing them, if you want to get folks’ attention on energy issues, you’ve got to make them pay out the….

Like at the gas pump.

-JOHN DERRICK

The Hill 101

2009-04-11T20:45:00.000-07:00

Aloha, hello and welcome! Today marks the official start of The Hill's blog. As you might know--probably from reading the previous post--The Hill is UNC's non-partisan political review.

This blog will further The Hill's mission to cover politics both at home and abroad. Our blog will offer a mix of commentary, reporting and interesting links, all courtesy of some of our best writers.

I need to explain one more thing. Because of the way this blog has been set up, all posts will be attributed to "WS." Well, this isn't quite true. Our writers will be creating the posts; I'm just the guy posting them. I'll make sure to note the ACTUAL author of each and every post.

For your reading pleasure, I'd like to offer a couple sites worth checking out. This will have to do until we set up a blogroll:

RealClearPolitics: A terrific website that collects and collates the day's best commentary.

Political Wire: A must-read for any political junkie.

TAPPED: Political blog published by the liberal journal The American Prospect; if that's not your taste, try The Corner, from the conservative magazine National Review.

Andrew Sullivan: One of the first major bloggers, and still one of the best.

Instapundit: The godfather of conservative blogs.

Stay tuned for most posts in the future! This blog has just begun to fight!

Welcome to the official blog of The Hill!

2009-02-28T15:54:00.000-08:00

As the University of North Carolina's only nonpartisan student political review, The Hill serves as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus.

This blog is intended to extend that same functionality online. With the absence of the space restrictions that sometimes limit coverage in the print edition of The Hill, our team of bloggers will have the opportunity to go more in-depth on a range of issues. Please feel free to contribute using the comments feature below each post, and please send ideas and comments to the editor.