RSS Feed

‘Civic Issues’ Category

  1. 2016 Elections

    April 9, 2015 by Hannah Conroy

    I love election years. What is more partisan and exciting than an election? Candidate of both parties fight to prove who is right, who is better. The parties strive to divide the population into two distinct groups. With the 2016 election approaching, more and more candidates are announcing their intentions to run. So far, only a few Republicans have announced their candidacy, however I think it would interesting to take a look at the candidates through the lense of their views and the relative levels of support they have from their parties.

    Ted Cruz was the first Republican to announce his candidacy for President. He is a Republican who follows the hard party line and sticks to the conservative values Republicans are known for. He is fiscally and socially conservative, and hopes to attract the traditional conservative base with his platform. However, Cruz also hopes to extend his campaign to include “dominating the tea party faction and competing for the libertarian base” (Source). His partisan support will, hopefully, come from the more conservative Republicans, and the more “liberal” Republicans in the form of Libertarians. He will have to compete with Rand Paul for the support of Libertarians in the primaries, and how he intends to do so is unknown to me. If he wins the nomination, however, he will have an easier time simply winning the Libertarian vote away from the Democrats.

    Ted Cruz’s campaign appeals to liberal and conservative ends of conservatism by calling for the abolition of the IRS. He also appeals slightly more to Libertarians by calling out NSA spying. Cruz is especially trying to appeal to Evangelical voters, for example he prayed with a supporter after a campaign event recently. Cruz has also publicly supported the “Religious Freedom” law in Indiana (don’t even get me started), drawing the support of many conservatives. If I had to guess (translation: this is my loosely informed opinion which means nothing), I think Cruz currently has more establishment Republican support than the other candidate at the moment, Rand Paul. However, I have no idea who will draw Republican support once more candidates announce.

     Rand Paul also very recently announced his candidacy, officially doing so on Tuesday. Paul is a Republican, but his views could really be best described as Libertarian. He takes a more liberal stance than hard-line Republicans on a variety of issues. For example, Rand advocates “reducing federal drug penalties, clamping down on the nation’s intelligence agencies and taking a more deliberative approach to military intervention” (Source). However, he does not take the typical liberal social views of establishment Libertarianism. Overall, Paul expresses a “dogged advocacy of civil liberties combined with an anti-interventionist foreign policy and general support for family values” (Source). This means Paul takes the conservative, Republican line on social issues such as gay marriage (against it) and abortion (against it). He’s Republican, but not. I honestly wish he would take liberal social views, as I feel the American public could benefit from having a truly Libertarian, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, candidate in the election, but that’s just me.

    Now the question is, does Rand Paul have enough support to win? The answer is maybe, but probably not. He is running as a Republican, and will come under fire for his more liberal views, such as view that America needs to be more careful in it’s engagements abroad. This could be seen as, and argued to be, undermining to national security. Paul knows he may have trouble gathering support, leading to his campaigns over the past few years to gain support from “nontraditional bases”, such as African American voters and college students in California. Paul has been “focusing on criminal justice reform and civil liberties, two issues he believes can bring more people into the Republican Party” (Source). Paul is going to need to attract those voters, as he is most likely going to alienate hard-line Republicans, especially with his foreign policy views. As Republicans will struggle to see Paul as a true member of their party, Democrats are going to portray Paul as a true Republican, unworthy of liberal support. The parties will both paint different pictures of Paul, which I find very interesting. Support, or more accurately, opposition, will be divided on party lines, with neither party having true, full support for him.

    With the primaries quickly approaching, many more candidates are expected to announces their candidacies soon. Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio are all expected to announce. Who do you hope runs? Who do you think will draw the support of establishment Republicans? Do you think Rand Paul has a chance of winning the primary? The Presidency? Let me know!


  2. Funding the Department of Homeland Security

    March 18, 2015 by Hannah Conroy

    On Tuesday, March 3rd, Congress voted to continuing funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This funding was a long time coming; the agency needed funds and almost shut down before the Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement to pass the bill. This was not a simple disagreement over how much funding the Department of Homeland Security should have though, the debate over the bill was wrapped up in partisan ideals and opinions about how the country should be run.

    Republicans do not like the way Obama has handled the issue of immigration reform in the United States. The President has utilized executive actions to put his policies into place. Through an executive action, Obama has provided legal protection for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants (NY Times). Republicans claim this is an abuse of power; they say Obama is “lawless” and his actions are unconstitutional. In an attempt to overturn Obama’s executive actions on immigration, Republicans tried to tie them to funding for the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is responsible for carrying out a majority of this executive action, making the funding of the department a viable way to influence the fate of the executive action. However, Democrats tend to support the executive action by the President, dividing support for the bill on partisan lines. Partisan disagreement and inability to come to an outside resolution almost led to a lapse in funding for the department.

    Originally, the Senate passed a bill funding the department, but the House wanted to attempt to reconcile it with an earlier bill they had passed that also worked against the legal protection given to undocumented immigrants under Obama’s executive actions. At the last minute, Speaker Boehner of the House gave up on trying to pass the bill containing language taking down Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Instead, Boehner worked to pass a bill only funding the department, with no other conditions attached, a “clean” funding bill. Some Republicans did not like this move, as they had hoped to take a stand against Obama with this bill. Other Republicans argued they needed to pass a funding bill now and attack the executive actions on immigration with a separate bill. Boehner ultimately had to rely on Democrats to pass the bill, with only 75 Republican House members voting for it.

    Boehner had to weigh his options, he could either continue trying to pass the bill with the language gutting Obama’s immigration actions or try to pass a bill only dealing with funding the Department of Homeland Security. Boehner was most likely not going to be able to pass a bill with the immigration language, as Senate Democrats were working to block the bill in their chamber, and it was not going to make it to the President any time soon. Furthermore, the DHS was on the verge of shutdown, it was not going to be able to carry on much longer without funding. The Department of Homeland Security provides a vital defense service to the country, and if the agency shut down and led to Americans being in danger, Boehner would be in some hot water, politically.

    Earlier in the week, on the previous Friday, Boehner and the Republican leadership had introduced a measure that would fund the Department for 3 weeks. The hope was that this measure would give the Republicans time to gather support in the Senate for their bill that funded the agency, but also overturned Obama’s executive actions. However, the more conservative factions of the Republican party did not support his measure, and it failed to pass. The more conservative Republicans expressed a willingness to allow the DHS to shut down in order to show the President and the American people their distaste for the President’s executive actions on immigration. A measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security for one week ultimately passed late Friday night with the help of House Democrats, which Obama signed hours before the agency would be forced to shut down. A helpful graphic explaining the timeline of early events can be found here.

    Boehner presented further options to his party on Tuesday. He told the House Republicans they could: allow the department to partially shutdown, attempt to pass another short-term funding measure, or pass a clean funding bill (NY Times). The Republicans agreed to the full funding bill and it passed that day.

    Another wrinkle in this story involves the day on which this bill was passed. If you are an avid reader of my Civic Issues blog (as I’m sure you all are), you will remember there was some drama a few weeks ago about an invitation John Boehner extended to the leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. There was partisan disagreement about whether this move was acceptable and everyone was all up in arms over it for about two days. Well, the day finally came and Netanyahu spoke to Congress. When was that you may ask? It was Tuesday, the day Boehner passed a bill that was relatively unpopular with Republicans. It could be argued that he was using the speaking of Netanyahu, which was very popular with Republicans, to soften the blow of the passage of the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

    Overall, partisan disagreement about President Obama’s executive action on immigration almost led to the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I find it ridiculous that the House Republicans waited until the last minute to introduce and pass a clean funding bill, as I think if they fight the executive actions they should do so with a separate bill. Do you think the Republicans should have stuck to their guns and tried to pass the bill gutting the executive action? Was it irresponsible to wait as long as they did to pass a clean bill? Should they have let the department shut down to prove their point? Any other thoughts?

     


  3. Deliberation Reflections

    February 27, 2015 by Hannah Conroy

    Last night, I attended a deliberation entitled “Get Schooled: Is College Really Worth It?”. The deliberation was very interesting, and provided valuable insight into how I should present at my own deliberation. I was focused primarily on the way the approach teams presented their information, as that is most relevant to me, however I also found the other team’s presentations interesting and informative.

    To begin, Team Overview explained the rules of a deliberation, which I thought was a very important step in the introduction of the topic. They also explained the topic and what was to be discussed. They then introduced the first approach team, who took the stage next. The approach teams at this deliberation did not go very in depth when explaining their solutions, however. I found this odd, as I spent a lot of time researching and compiling my research into an understandable and succinct presentation of the information for the people present at the deliberation. Instead of presenting their approach and solution, however, the presenters at this deliberation simply directed the participants to their issue guide and began the deliberation. They did not even read the guiding questions from the guide. I understand this saved time, however I would have liked some presentation, just to help frame each approach a little more, as the resulting discussion felt vague to me. I now see the value of presenting the solutions at my own deliberation.

    I thought the discussion felt unfocused and broad at times, with the same points being made and the same topics being discussed in each approach. This did allow for in-depth discussion of the specific topics being discussed, but did not lead to wide range of discussion. I honestly do not know if we discussed the solutions under each approach, as they were never clearly laid out. I know this may have been a strategic choice by the leaders of this deliberation, and I understand why they may have wanted to let the discussion go where it may within each broad approach. It did allow for freedom and free discussion. However, I like to have specifics and directions, and especially after preparing my own presentation specifically discussing each approach it felt odd to not have each solution clearly and specifically laid out. Also, the lack of explicitly stated framing questions was odd to me, due to the emphasis on them within my own deliberation, though I know this was also most likely a strategic and deliberate choice by this deliberation team. This experience opened my eyes to the importance of clear framing questions to help guide the deliberation, and led me to review some of my own in order to improve them.

    Also, the issue guide at this deliberation was much more extensive and lengthy than the one my team has prepared. It is five pages long, with the introduction, each approach, and the conclusion each having their own page. This was helpful, because the approach teams did not speak deeply about their topic, but was also slightly overwhelming. It was nice to have all the information in front of you to reference, though.

    During the discussion of the approaches I also noticed a few people dominating the conversation, and gained an appreciation for how difficult and somewhat awkward it is for the moderator to try to steer the conversation towards other participants. That is not an easy or comfortable task to accomplish. After each approach team went, Team Summary took the stage. They did a very nice job of summarizing the points made during the deliberation.

    Overall, I found attending another deliberation very informative and helpful. I was able to see what worked and what did not, and now can apply what I learned to my own deliberation. I now see the importance of presenting my approach and solutions clearly, and asking straightforward framing questions.

     


  4. Gay Marriage in Alabama

    February 12, 2015 by Hannah Conroy

    Sometimes I catch myself thinking of partisanship and polarization as a problem, and a big one, but one that doesn’t really affect me directly. Often it feels as if partisanship in the government only affects far-off laws and negotiations that will work themselves out. And if they don’t, how much does it really matter? In the long run I feel like it will all be fine, no matter what the policy is. However, I think this story is an example of how partisanship can directly affect the daily lives of Americans and their loved ones. Gay marriage is something I see as an inherently partisan issue, one that has deep seated roots in political ideology. Democrats and other liberals tend to be supportive of gay marriage, while Republicans and other conservatives tend to be unsupportive of gay marriage. Gay marriage may not affect me directly, I can get married everywhere, however I have friends and family I would like to see get married one day who do not currently have that right. In this instance, partisan politics have a big effect on my life. So, disclaimer, I am really supportive of gay marriage and that may color my portrayal of the issue. Feel free to comment any aspects of the opposing viewpoint I may have missed or misrepresented.

    The current event aspect of this blog involves the future of gay marriage in Alabama. In theory, same-sex marriages should have begun in Alabama on Monday, February 9th. A federal judge, Judge Granade, ruled last month that the state’s law outlawing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. That ruling was set to go into action on Monday; however, that is not what happened. In Alabama, probate judges are in charge of issuing marriage licenses. These judges are popularly elected, and according the Grenade herself, are not bound by the federal judge’s ruling, On Sunday night, Justice Moore of Alabama’s Supreme Court sent a letter to the probate judges of the state saying:

     

    “‘Effective immediately, no probate judge of the state of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent’ with a constitutional amendment and a state law banning same-sex unions” (Moore).

     

    As a result of this letter, 54 out of 67 counties in Alabama were not issuing same-sex marriage licenses on Monday. The probate judges refused, citing the fact that they were bound by the orders of Judge Moore, not the federal judge, Judge Granade. However, also on Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 7-2 to not step in to stop gay marriages in Alabama. The state had asked for a stay of Judge Grenade’s ruling, pending appeals of it. The Supreme Court will not halt the marriages, even though the court is set to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage later in the year. The two dissenting justices, Scalia and Thomas, said this was the Supreme Court effectively commenting on same-sex marriage before it’s scheduled ruling later in the year. On Tuesday, more probate judges decided to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, decreasing to only 44 of 67 refusing. Some of the probate judges who changed their position on the issue cite the supremacy of the Supreme Court and federal judges over the state judges. One probate judge, Judge Elsen, began issuing the same-sex marriage license on Tuesday, after refusing to do so on Monday, saying he “disagreed with the Supreme Court’s action but had to be guided by it” (Elsen).

    Elsen is a Republican, but he is being guided by the law and orders from the government. He may have ideological differences from the ruling, but is he a judge and he has to follow the law. Partisanship should not have a role in carrying out the law. I know gay marriage is a religious issue for many people; many Alabamians are conservative Christians, and 70% of the state opposes same-sex marriage. However, I believe partisanship also plays a large role in this decision. Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, and the Republicans are sticking to their political beliefs, despite court rulings. The issue of federal supremacy is also involved in this event, as Alabama fights to have state control of this issue. The issue of state or federal control over gay marriage in states is one I also view as partisan. Conservatives often do not like federal control of issues they view as state ones. However, political beliefs do not matter at this point. The courts have said the state cannot refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses and partisanship should have no further impact on the issue. Alabama is the only state where probate judges were ordered to not comply with a federal court order. I would hope the probate judges are making decisions in this area based on their view of the law and what order they must follow, however I am not sure this is the case. Partisanship and fighting between conservative and liberal lawmakers feels very personal in this instance, and like a fight that will have reaching implications for the future of gay marriage in the state. What do you think, am I making this issue into a partisan one when it really has more to do with state’s rights and religion? Other thoughts?

     


  5. The Invitation

    January 29, 2015 by Hannah Conroy

    Last week, the day after the State of the Union address by President Obama, a weird thing happened. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, invited Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress. This may seem like an ordinary, boring diplomatic move on the surface, but it is actually an invitation fraught with controversy and differing opinions from the two political parties.

    The invitation to Netanyahu came as a reaction to discussion between the White House and Israel concerning increased sanctions on Iran. There is a suggestion to increase sanctions against Iran if certain criteria are not met by June 30. The United States has requested that the sanctions against Iran not be increased, saying talks of sanctions could damage the very delicate current relationship with Iran. The US is engaged in other talks and negotiations with Iran at the moment, attempting to find a diplomatic solution to disassemble Iran’s nuclear arsenal, and does not want those talks to go haywire as a result of the threat of increased sanctions. Obama and his administration have asked Congress to stay out of the sanctions talks, and Obama has threatened to veto a bill supporting sanctions if one passes Congress. Israel, however, wants the increased sanctions to be put into place. Obama had a phone call with Netanyahu and Secretary of State, John Kerry, met with the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer for several hours to discuss the sanctions. In these meetings, the US asked Israel to “sit tight” and wait on supporting sanctions.

    In general, Democrats and the Obama administration oppose the increased sanctions against Iran. Republicans in Congress, specifically Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Israel, including the Prime Minister, Netanyahu, support increasing the sanctions.

    Controversy arises when the circumstances of the invitation to Netanyahu are considered. The invitation came as a surprise to the Obama administration, who had no knowledge of the event prior to Boehner informing the administration that Netanyahu would be addressing Congress. Some are saying Boehner went behind the back of the White House in making this invitation; he did not coordinate it with them, as is customary. Neither Kerry nor Netanyahu informed the White House, until after Netanyahu had accepted the invitation. Also, it is a highly unusual move for a member of Congress to “[invite] a foreign leader directly into an American political debate” (Nakamura). Is John Boehner even allowed to invite a foreign dignitary to speak to Congress? The invitation was a “breach of typical diplomatic protocol” the White House told the Associated Press (Nakamura). Technically, the President has the power to invite foreign dignitaries, not the Speaker of the House, but, honestly, I do not really think that is the biggest issue here.

    Questions have also arisen about the true motives behind Boehner’s invitation. Does he truly want to gain insight into the Israeli point of view and persuade members of Congress? Or is this purely a political move to undermine the President? In one view, “that invitation to address Congress…marked a sharp rejection of Obama’s plea for Congress to stay out of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. If Congress votes to sanction Iran, Obama had warned, it could upset delicate and long-running talks” (Nakamura). Boehner says Obama asked Republicans to stand by and do nothing concerning Iran, to which Boehner says “Hell no!”, according to a senior GOP aide (Nakamura). I’m not kidding, that is the quote the aide was provided, which apparently came from a meeting Boehner had with other Republicans. Boehner also also asked Netanyahu to speak about the “growing threat of radical Islam” in today’s world (Boehner to Fox News). It is expected that when Netanyahu will support speak on supporting the sanctions when he addresses Congress, which is scheduled to occur in March.

    Another aspect of this event involves what it says about relationship between the US and Israel. On the surface, America and Israel have a fairly solid, good relationship. However, there are internal tensions between the two countries, as chronicled by Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic. Goldberg keeps a list of things anonymous US officials have called Netanyahu, the highlights of this list include some fairly insulting, but nonetheless entertaining insults, including “chickensh*t”, “myopic”, “obtuse”, “reactionary”, and “Asbergery” (which I find oddly specific and incredibly politically incorrect). There are internal tensions that this invitation, and Netanyahu’s failure to tell Obama about it may have aggravated these tensions.

    So, Boehner, a Republican, has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, specifically to discuss sanctions against Iran. In general, Republicans support increased sanctions and Democrats do not, leading to Democrats and Republicans facing off over the invitation and the issue of the sanctions. Some Democrats are also mad about the circumstances of the invitation, saying Boehner went behind the back of the White House in inviting Netanyahu. I support Obama’s plan to hold off on talks of sanctions until it is clear Iran will not meet the benchmarks necessary and a diplomatic solution cannot be reached. However, I do not really see the harm in inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress. Boehner definitely went about setting up the speaking engagement in a somewhat sketchy manner, but overall I think the invitation itself is fine.

    Links to more information and my sources:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-why-netanyahu-is-right-to-go-around-obama-to-congress/2015/01/26/618a8bc2-a55d-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/netanyahu-obama-snub-sours-relations/

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/new-iran-sanctions-bill/

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/politics/benjamin-netanyahu-congress-invitation/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/25/is-netanyahus-address-to-congress-unconstitutional/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-state-of-the-union-obama-takes-credit-as-republicans-push-back/2015/01/21/dec51b64-a168-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/boehner-confirms-lawsuit-against-obama-on-fox-news-address-pushback-on/


Skip to toolbar