Current Affairs: A Thinking Man's Guide to Politics

It’s often said that the first term defines a President’s reelection chances and the second term defines their legacy. Needless to say, this can be for better or for worse.


Second Terms

One need only look back to Eisenhower’s move toward reason and demilitarization: LBJ’s second term that famously never was; Nixon’s downfall; Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair; Clinton and Lewinsky; and Bush II’s scramble to right the ship in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It begs the question of what we can expect from President Obama. Sure, Presidents typically rule from the center of their first term in something of a four year campaign to keep their seat for the next four years only to veer back to their respective wings (at least what we consider wings in the United States) to accomplish goals steeped in ideology. After all, there’s no political capital too precious to burn in a second term.

Lyndon Johnson famously said that those who support me early get access; those who support me late get good government. But for his shortcomings, not all his own, President Obama has given us good government. One can agree or disagree with his policies, but we’re largely devoid of the scandal racked administrations of yesterday’s Presidents.

We’re seeing a push on key policy initiatives such as gun control and immigration, which I will go into more depth below. We’ve already seen an attempt, albeit futile, at addressing the spending/revenue issue. In a perfect world, we would tackle in earnest our energy concerns, skyrocketing healthcare costs (as we await Obamacare), and campaign finance. The latter being, in my opinion, the crux of all the issues we face in America. I will save campaign finance for a separate entry.

This is to say nothing of critical foreign policy concerns, namely Syria and Iran, but also the region as a whole. The United States has taken the official stance of not intervening, with the exception of Libya, but what does that mean for our friends in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as troop withdrawal continues? This is the primary foreign policy issue facing this administration and the reality is that I’m not sure anyone knows quite what to do. Arguments abound about the US decision to not step in to spare Mubarak, the hand-picked successor of the late Anwar Sadat. In other words a friend to the US, which around the world means someone who allows the US to remove that country’s resources whatever they may be, hire our own companies to do it, and sell it at a profit to other countries including the country from whence it came in exchange for a cut of the dough and some protection. It’s all very la cosa nostra with the US as the capo di tutti capi. But I digress, back to domestic issues for now.

Gun Control

I think it’s obvious that something will get done on gun control. New York passed their law and this is beginning to follow the lead of immigration laws around the country where states begin to take matters into their own hands as a result of inertia in Washington. Similar to immigration, this would create a patchwork of laws around the country and fails to convey a uniform message to Americans and folks around the world of where we stand on guns. It does nothing to dispel our reputation as a ‘gun culture’ and does everything to reinforce that we’re a nation divided; on everything. I’m more hopeful though and I think something meaningful will happen. It has to happen. But predictably there are arguments from pro-gun folks, the gun lobby (NRA has garnered 250,000 new members since Newtown), and those in Congress who are beholden to it. The most common argument you’re likely to hear is that people kill people, not guns -that these are deranged people acting in isolated incidents and they would find some other way to kill people. The reality, however, is that they don’t. They don’t find other ways. They do use guns. They do use assault style weapons with extended clips. They aren’t isolated incidents – Since 1960, of the 20 worst mass shootings in the world, 11 have occurred in the United States. Coincidence doesn’t cut it and neither does their argument. Get something done now, or it’s destined to float in procedural purgatory. While it may not always seem like it, the public does affect change. It’s on us to keep the conversation going and to continue to pressure our elected officials to act, because we have a tendency to forget quickly and drop the conversation and wait for something like Newtown to happen again to enrage us. Let’s hold out longer than they do.



Immigration

As for immigration, this has been on the agenda for years preceding President Obama. Perhaps no other President has been as ambiguous on immigration as Obama. Champion a nation of immigrants while simultaneously deporting folks in record numbers. Though, to be fair, I don’t jump on this paradox like others do and relish the hypocrisy. I understand that while many immigrants provide an economic and cultural boon to the United States, there are many who do our nation great harm and they must be dealt with accordingly, but humanely.

Immigration policies frequently stall and full on breakdowns have come to discourage reform advocates, but it’s gotten a lot more interesting politically following Obama’s reelection. Republican policies advanced in the campaign in 2008 were unabashedly anti-immigrant, which in our country is synonymous with Hispanic. In response, 60% of the Latino vote went to Obama. So what did Republicans do? They did what they always do: they doubled down. They got more vitriolic and more ethnocentric. They used threats both personal and legal to suppress voters. They waged full campaigns to keep these voters from the polls with fear tactics. The result: 65% of Latino voters went for Obama. Now, even Republicans can figure this out. They may argue that Obama’s reelection was not a mandate for higher taxes; it most certainly was for immigration reform. The Republicans have to do something; they need to do something; which is where we come back to my point about how immigration has gotten a lot more interesting politically. What was once seen largely as a policy goal that would be a huge feather in Obama’s cap that he would have to fight and claw to get from Republicans will now be something that Obama can give Republicans because there is one thing that trumps all else in Washington and that is reelection. Obama wants immigration reform for his legacy, Republicans want it because they need to get reelected and they know they can’t do so on a national scale without a bigger chunk of support from the Latino electorate.


Watch for immigration reform to get done and the next battle between Republicans and Democrats on this issue to be who pushed it through and who fought for more rights and protections for Latinos. A messaging battle.



Sequestration

For now, we have our hands full with sequestration; the threat of a self inflicted wound so drastic that we would never let it happen to ourselves, except that we’re about to do just that. We’re days away from automatic spending cuts so severe that the repercussions will be felt by all. While it’s politically unpalatable to suggest, I will anyway. In a way, I’m ok with these spending cuts. Why? Well, because people will be able to see the value of government. Not every program is wasted and abused and merely an employment program. That the 70,000 kids that will be removed from the educational program Head Start affects everyone. That is something we all have a stake in. Until now, the only time government gets noticed is when people look at their paycheck and see money deducted without thinking for a second about what it’s for. People don’t want to pay taxes but they want clean parks, paved roads, plowed streets, their trash picked up, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and competent health practitioners. They want fires put out, safe cars, well-trained teachers, after-school programs, clean air, clean water, large ice caps, shorelines free of oil and more yet they don’t want to pay for it.

Maybe with deep cuts to government programs, we’ll see how valuable they truly are. I think that’s what Republicans are actually afraid of because they’re not against massive cuts to government spending; they are against people recognizing even a shred of value in what the government provides. That is what shakes them to their core, because their ideology is based on a fiction that government is unnecessary and that everyone is John Galt and creates their own wealth and currency and was born in a log cabin they built themselves. And then there is reality.

Is there waste in government? Of course. Is there a spending problem in this country? Of course. Is there a problem with what people demand but don’t want to pay for it? Absolutely. I highlighted it above, and Republicans want to take a unilateral approach – cut spending. Again though, they’re not wrong, but to call letting tax cuts expire for the wealthiest segment of our population a tax hike and a massive compromise is patently false.

That said, the refrain by now is familiar. Both sides have to come to the table and compromise. I disagree. I would hold out. For too long have Democrats allowed Republicans to be obstinate and get their way because they throw a tantrum. Democrats have stayed above the fray for too long. Time to get dirty and let sequestration happen, promote it as Republicans getting exactly what they want – the spending cuts they yearn for and attribute ALL of the fallout to them as well. Show a direct cause and effect between the conservatives in this country – Republican and Democrat – getting what they want and what happens as a result.

Let this happen and then say now it’s time to get what we want – gun control and immigration reform. Now you’ve given Republicans a massive blow to society and taken ownership of two policy initiatives the American public desperately wants.

Worth a shot, but it won’t happen.

-Carl Marcs