Egypt: We Ain't Meddlin'

I think this is first and foremost a matter for the Executive Branch – the President, his advisors, the Secretary of State and the rest of the diplomatic team in the Middle East – to produce some sort of approach/policy in future dealings with Egypt. As the discussion right now simply involves the allocation of funding/aid in the revolutionized country, it seems obvious that the officials most equipped to handle this sort of situation are those whose job is diplomacy in foreign affairs. I do not feel that Congress needs to be directly involved as of now.

President Obama’s handling of the rapidly developing and increasingly unstable situation, in my opinion, was appropriate and calculated. Many critics blasted him for not explicitly pledging support for either side but I thought this was a smart move. A slate.com article concisely voices my opinion: “There was no advantage in giving an opinion.”[1] Had Obama “chosen” sides, he would have showed his cards before the hand was played out. With the speed and uncertainty of the uprising, an event that was largely a civilized expression of citizen unrest, to NOT sit on the fence could have entailed serious, long-term problems in U.S. relations with Egypt. I appreciate the President’s decision to not meddle in the matters of a sovereign nation. The article goes on to say that posturing on Egypt would “have detracted from the power and appeal of the protests: They were organic and peaceful and growing even without official commentary from the United States. In the end, this wasn't about America, and the more that is made clear, administration officials hope, the more it will help the movement for freedom in the Middle East. In addition, it will put responsibility for success in Egypt not on the United States, but on the Egyptians.” I absolutely thought Obama and his staff handled the situation well and his comments during his talk at Northern were sensitive to the situation while still being sure to demarcate U.S. support for the spread of democracy.

The threat of Islamic occupation of power in Egypt is not entirely new: a similar situation arose in the 1980s with the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. In the wake, “he made security an absolute priority, arresting and imprisoning Islamists and their supporters across the country. [2] Expectations were high for the new President as were his promises for economic prosperity. Over the years though, Mubarak did not live up to his self-prescribed billing and the people became increasingly unhappy with each self-nominated terms of presidency. I have heard reports that Mubarak amassed incredible amounts – in the tens of billions – of dollars during his reign while Egypt continued in a downward spiral, spurred on by Mubarak’s increasingly brutal militant ruler ship.

Egypt, undoubtedly, is a major actor in maintaining some semblance of peace and stability in the Middle East. It is likely that there are many dictators and kings throughout the region that are unnerved by the goings-on in Egypt. As stated elsewhere in this forum, there is great opportunity in the vacuum the uprising has created for radical religious regimes to step in. But one of the goals of the movement was to enact a democracy, which has its own risks and benefits in itself for the U.S. What happens if a radical Muslim is elected through an entirely democratic voting? What if the new leader for Egypt does not wish to play guardian to Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East? This is all incredibly uncertain for the United States but I do think that the movement was beneficial for the people of Egypt and their future.

Former senior advisor to the President, David Axelrod, spoke about the President’s continued pressure on Mubarak to improve his human rights record and decrease the use of torture and inhumane acts in dealing with Egyptian citizens. [3] This pressure was obviously fickle as Egypt has been one of our closest allies in the Middle East; however, it is a demonstration that the President has been engaged and aware of Mubarak’s terrible track record in matters of human treatment. So while Washington has long been a (financial) supporter of Egypt, they have – at least in recent years – been attempting to address one of the grievances that the protests have cited as motivating the recent activity.

In addition to Mubarak’s poor treatment of his citizens, the core problem is this: the majority of Egypt’s population is young, well-educated and unemployed. As stated, Mubarak allowed Egypt to fall into economic disarray while cashing in big bucks for his own estate. I think this is the area where U.S. aid would be most beneficial, effective and welcomed. There is serious push-back to Western, specifically U.S., involvement in Middle Eastern nations. If we do not want to increase anti-American sentiment in the region, we need to negotiate with Egypt with great sensitivity, which I feel President Obama and his staffers are well-equipped to do. I propose U.S. contributions targeted at creating more economic opportunities for young people in the public and private sector (i.e. small start-up loans for entrepreneurs, investment in infrastructure projects, etc.). It should be noted that these, in my opinion, should NOT be U.S. contractor jobs but rather investments in the Egyptian work-able population. With more aid and/or directing aid at the military, we could simply repeat what has happened in Iraq with a government essentially unable to prop themselves up without high U.S. support. With the strength of the Egyptian armed forces, there is no need to continue our aid in that sense.

This would be a move that I feel would benefit U.S.-Middle Eastern relations and set ourselves up in the long-term to show the Arab world that we are supporting their futures and the movement toward peace/stability, not just siding with whomever we want in power to control the region under our terms. I think if we were to make these sorts of investments, popular opinion about the U.S. and Western world could have marked improvements.

1. “Was Obama Too Indecisive On Egypt?” John Dickerson. http://www.slate.com/id/2284676/

2. “Egypt’s Mubarak: A Cautious, Heavy-Handed Ruler.” http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133665161/egypts-mubarak-a-cautious-heavy-handed-ruler

3. “Axelrod: President Obama has “On Several Occassions Directly Confronted” Mubarak on Human Rights for the Past Two Years “To Get Ahead of This.” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/axelrod-president-obama-has-on-several-occasions-directly-confronted-mubarak-on-human-rights-for-the.html

Keepin' Up with the Joneses: Congress & the President

I think it is important that before talking about whether or not Congress is now a co-equal to the President – or has even surpassed the Presidential powers – that we discuss the growth of presidential power throughout the past century. And it is my opinion that Congress has attempted to grow to meet the challenge of balancing out the expansive powers of the Presidency, a reactionary move necessary to maintain some semblance of equilibrium in our federal government.

Prior to World War II, the U.S. was a world power but Great Britain was definitely the top dog. With limited damage incurred during the war paired with a thriving economy, the United States catapulted to a position of world predominance. This transformation changed the power of the President of the United States in ways unimagined by the founders of our Constitution as evidenced by the ambiguity of language prescribing the role of the Presidency. Accordingly, “the question whether a President has exceeded her authority is seldom immediately obvious because the powers of the office are so open-ended” [1]. And with each continued assertion of Presidential authority, there is little to be done constitutionally/legally/legislatively that could reverse the effects – the precedent is set.

Additionally, the incredible amount of international conflict that has occurred in the past century and continues to occur today has lent itself to the phenomenon of sensitive information privy only to the President and not to Congress – especially prior to the Freedom of Information Act (1966). The nature of these conflicts requires increasingly quick action by the government, as do situations like the latest economic recession when major corporations, essentially fundamental to continued stability in the United States and our relations abroad, needed to be propped up by the federal government or face serious and likely total collapse (which we may need, truthfully). We also saw the growth of and reliance on, by Congress, the presidency in other national crises such as the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Hurricane Katrina.

Aside from the reasons given above and the others discussed in this forum (i.e. population growth), another focal impetus is the role of media and popular culture. Obviously the media has great influence on how the president is received by the public but it also places the President as the center of national power and the image of the President as the image of the nation. The President is seen as speaking on behalf of the nation and is our representative to the world, a reality more and more lucid as globalization of media coverage makes the world smaller every day. Prior to the W. Bush reign, I would argue that this gave the President some automatic credibility whenever speaking to the public. Even with the increased criticism, the fact that the President unfailingly commands the attention of the media is a unique power that he/she holds over Congress, the Judiciary and other government actors. In this, a President has the opportunity to be supported or reelected simply based on face power and the “I just like him” factor often seen in popular culture.

I would like to close by saying that Congress is not doing itself any favors in its quest to become (or at least be seen) as a co-equal to the president by cultivating an increasingly polarized two-party system. With Congress at odds, it is a simple matter of divide-and-conquer, making moves as the two sides are squabbling, that has also led to the growth of presidential power. “In the highly polarized two-party system currently dominating national politics, a member’s political success depends more on the fortunes of her particular party than on the stature of Congress. This means members of Congress have a greater personal interest in the President’s success as a leader of their party than they have in Congress as an institution” [ibid]. We saw the fruits of this in the recent highly partisan debates surrounding what to do in the wake of the economic recession and healthcare in which the Democrats almost unanimously supported Obama’s packages. When Obama was seen as unsuccessful in these measures by the public (as perpetuated by the Republicans), we saw the affects in the 2010 elections, where Democratic Congressional seats across the country were lost at an alarming rate.

[1] "Eleven Reasons Why Presidential Power Inevitably Expands and Why it Matters." William P. Marshall. Boston University Law Review. http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MARSHALL.pdf

Congress & the Social Network Revolution

There is no doubt that technology has impacted the ways in which we relate and communicate with one another. If you look at the evolution of technology’s impact on communication over time, I think we can have a better understanding of where we have been, what is happening currently and where we ought to invest our energies and resources in the future. With the immense speed at which technology is being developed today, I feel it is important, in order to stay grounded, to begin with this historical context before discussing what to improve upon and employ in the future.

Only recently have laptops, iPads, cellphones, Blackberrys, iPhones and all other sorts of hand-held “smart” devices come into prominence and/or existence within the last decade. For example: the Blackberry technology was first developed in 1999; Facebook was launched in 2004; five years ago even, texting from your phone was not very widely used; and the iPad was released only in 2010. So before we start gasping at how these items have been banned from the House Floor up until recently, we need to recognize that these technologies (and many others) have simply out-paced the speed at which our Congress makes changes – which in many ways I appreciate.

In the days of the hunter-gatherers and tribal relations, communication extended only to those within shouting distance and everyone over the next mountain was seen as the “other.” With the rise of civilization and the advent of script, communication and ideas were able to transcend space and time and be passed on from generations and more people. The 19^th and early 20^th century Industrial Revolution brought about the mechanization and mass-production of communication technologies such as the telegraph, telephone, radio and eventually the television. We saw during the Vietnam War how television transformed the political landscape and the manner in which people received information about what was happening in our government. The television was equally important in the election of President John F. Kennedy, who likely would not have been voted into office had it not been for this new technology. But Obama’s 2008 campaign for president revolutionized the future of Washington’s relationship with technology and, more specifically, the internet.

Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post has stated, “Were it not for the internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.” Joe Trippi, Obama’s campaign manager, agreed by acknowledging that strategically took advantage of the interactive web tools that became popular, especially among the younger demographic, between 2004 and the 2008 election. Between YouTube, Rock the Vote, Twitter, Facebook, Pay Pal-like contribution drives and the rise of Snopes and other fact-checkers, the democratic and campaign process have moved into the virtual domain and are likely to stay there.

We are absolutely standing at a generational crossroad in the evolution of human communication. While new web tools allow everyone (who has the internet, of course, which is another topic to address: internet – a privilege or fundamental right?) access to what is happening in Washington and around the world, there will be some growing pains and potentially some collateral damage in adjusting to a political world in which nothing is “off the record” and an offhand comment can go viral in only moments with no chance of ever reneging. Mr. Trippi saw this as a positive: “This medium demands authenticity, and television, for the most part, demanded fake. Authenticity is something politicians haven’t been used to.” I too believe this is a good thing but it also makes me wary about giving everyone a chance to weigh in under the anonymity of the internet. As we have discussed before, vitriol and polarizing rhetoric is so easily done when the face-to-face confrontation is taken out of the equation.

Obama has two interactive websites, MyWhiteHouse.gov and Change.gov, in which he is able to reach out to his supporters and continually campaign to those who may be in the fence. This creates something unlike anything we have seen before. Mr. Trippi comments on this new reality: “When Congress refuses to go with his agenda, it’s not going to be just the president they oppose. It will be the president and his huge virtual network of citizens.” It remains to be seen all the ways in which this claim will be substantiated and played out in the relationship between the President and Congress. But, right now, just as what is happening in Egypt, this is a revolution spurred on and contained almost entirely within technology. I just hope people remember that the actors, including themselves, are real, living human beings.

Just watch this: “Everything is Amazing and Nobody is Happy”, Louis C.K.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

Referenced: Claire Cain Miller, “How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics,” New York Times, 7 November 2008, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

Queen Latifah - U.N.I.T.Y.

POTUS @ NMU

After waiting for hours, the podium is finally christened with the Presidential seal.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States."

February 10, 2011 - 1:30 p.m. in the Vandament Arena on the campus of Northern Michigan University

Marquette, Michigan -

Deuces

Arrival of President Obama's Motorcade

Welcome to Marquette, Mr. President.

Redistricting, post-2010 Census

I have found the discussion in this forum on district reapportionment to be of substance and potentially beneficial to the state and national dialogue on how to reform, revolutionize or continue the status-quo of reapportionment. The comment I found to be most grounding came from Craig, that as American citizens, “We would like to think that in a democracy, we the voters choose our politicians, but in the redistricting process, the politicians choose the voters.” I think this is a truthful, pointed comment on an incredibly fundamental and in many ways disturbing contradiction within our current legislative process. In my opinion, serious reforms need to be taken on a national level.

In a Detroit Free Press article [1] – that I think was referenced by someone else as well – potential solutions were suggested. Craig Ruff, a senior policy fellow at Lansing’s Public Sector Consultants, created a projection map of congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census. Though I do not know his political leanings or his background, I really appreciated the fact that of his criteria for the map (population estimates, compactness, sanctity of county lines), partisan advantage was not included. In the postings of my classmates, a reoccurring suggestion for reapportionment reform related directly to party lines and somehow creating “50/50” districting, which is inherently impossible and, in an indirect way, playing into partisan politics. 50/50 districting would take into account only those who self-identify and/or register in one of those two parties, which many voters do not, setting up even more logistical problems.

An additional suggestion was brought up in the Freep article: Jocelyn Benson is working in cooperation with the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration and the Michigan Redistricting Collaborative to launch the Michigan Redistricting Competition in which citizens can enter their own congressional districting map to be scored and forwarded to the Legislature. While I welcome the intention of Ruff’s map and Benson’s competition – “Make redistricting about assuring equal representation for Michigan citizens rather than about protecting politicians” – I feel that neither really address the structural, systemic issues related to needed redistricting procedural reform.

Historically in Michigan, it has been the Legislature that draws up a statute of reapportionment every ten years and votes on the measure. An op-ed by Norman Williams, an Oregon journalist, makes an excellent point: “Of course, allowing legislatures to draw their own district lines is akin to permitting foxes to guard the henhouse” [2]. This has led to racial gerrymandering, as discussed in this forum at length, and now blatant partisan gerrymandering. There is no competition between parties and therefore no real competition beyond primary elections, which hurts both the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process. Williams states, “Competitive elections are not only fair to both parties; they are the hallmark of a healthy and mature democracy.”

This phenomenon is not exclusive to Michigan as states across the country are reexamining their reapportionment processes. An article about Pennsylvania [3], which is in a similar situation as Michigan in that they are set to lose a congressional seat, discusses the contradictions within their own state on the matter of redistricting state v. national congressional seats: “Congressional redistricting is done by the regular legislative process: a bill is passed and a statute is created. For state legislative seats however there is this Commission under article two of the state constitution which creates a five-member Commission: two from each party to be appointed by the legislative leaders and a fifth person appointed by those four.” Commenting on this process, the article states that the current system is inherently an “insider’s game” that is found all across the nation in legislative politics. From the article: “We tend to elect the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans and in those situations the party loyalties tend to perpetuate themselves when they get elected to the legislature. That makes it much harder to compromise because the most extreme wing of the parties tends to prevail in elections.” The article goes on to say that new computer systems are adding to this highly-partisan environment as legislators utilize these programs to select their voters.

Though I recognize the role that technology can and does play in drawing district lines, I am wary to give that task entirely over to gigantic data bases and number-crunching computer systems. Sophisticated mapping tools have led to the designing of anti-competitive districts with the focus of maximizing partisan power and reelection chances, giving an incredibly unfair advantage to the party in power at the time of redistricting and incumbents in all parties. I do not believe that there are ways to quantify or fully take into account all of that factors that ought to be considered in reapportionment. Even if a program were possible, I would still like to see our energies going toward finding human compromise rather than relying on technology as it is apparent we need more work in our human-to-human relations in politics.

A 2002 article in The Economist touches on the impact of technology in the districting process – 2002! Imagine that! [4] The article is written in the wake of the 2000 U.S. presidential election in which the almost exactly 50-50 split in voters exposed some serious concerns with the changing tides of redistricting and its correlation with the advent of new technologies. From the article:

“First, new software has made it easier to draw more “reliable” electoral maps – i.e. to be more exact in your partisanship. Until the 1990s, legislators had to draw districts using coloured pens on acetate sheets spread out on big maps on the floor. Computers appeared in the 1990s, but only big, sophisticated ones could handle the demographic data, putting the cost beyond all but a few states. Now the Census Bureau puts out digitized maps, called TIGER/Line files. New geographic information systems for mapping and anaylising demographic data cost only a few thousand dollars, work on ordinary Windows operating systems, and can draw up partisan maps automatically. This has turned gerrymandering – sorry, redistricting – from an art into a science. Second the 50-50 split in the 2000 election has changed what the parties want from redistricting. Under the old plans, you maximized your seats by drawing up districts which you would win narrowly. That was risky, because it gave your opponents a chance. Now the parties have adopted a policy of safety first. Because the House of Representatives is so closely balanced, legislatures try to maximize the number of safe seats for each side, drawing competitive districts only if they cannot avoid it.”

So, what can be done? The article goes on to discuss the ways in which states are already (in 2002) using alternative systems. For example, in Iowa, “Civil servants draw new lines without reference to incumbents or regional voting patterns…[while] five other states hand redistricting authority over to bipartisan commissions, sometimes with a neutral tie-breaker approved by both parties.” As admitted by the article, neither system is without flaws but on the same coin either would work better than the one in existence now as either remove debates about redistricting from legislature, leaving them “free to get on undistracted with their proper business, such as crafting budgets.” The states that utilize these systems have shown marked differences in the number of competitive House races compared to other states.

With all the talk about partisan or non-partisan assessment in drawing district lines, I would like to bring in a concept discussed last semester in my State and Local Government course (also with Dr. Haynes). We talked at length about the ways in which districts could be delineated, including the idea of a 50-50 split or a strictly non-partisan head count, but we also discussed the need to address or at least acknowledge the very different interests of rural, suburban and urban areas and how these interests play into the electoral process, especially in Michigan, which has such great diversity between the three settings. Though, akin to the 50-50 split notion, creating totally balanced city-country-suburbs split in every district is impossible, it would be interesting to see how this and other similar aspects could be considered. Is this a viable consideration?

Everything that I researched on this matter made sure to mention this truism: without popular pressure, no legislator will willingly subject themselves to a competitive election and/or cede redistricting power to a bipartisan or non-partisan process. Changes on the state level would like require a new law or amendment to the state constitution, both measures controlled by legislators. Every time the proverbial pendulum swings, the party in power wants to retain the status-quo in redistricting while the minority party cries foul play. It is sometimes difficult to see an end to the madness but I think having this sort of dialogue, as stated, is incredibly valuable to get the ball rolling toward fairness, transparency and an atmosphere of more collaboration – rather than partisan combativeness – within our legislatures.

1. “Editorial: Where to draw the lines. Redistricting process needs fresh ideas.” Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20110130/OPINION01/101300465/1053/SPORTS05/Editorial-Where-draw-lines?odyssey=nav|head

2. “Let’s take the foxes out of the legislative henhouse.” Norman Williams. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/01/lets_take_the_foxes_out_of_the.html

3. “Hoping for reform in who draws new district lines.” Newsworks. http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/10350-03lfdistrict

4. “How to rig an election: In a normal democracy, voters choose their representatives. In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way around.” The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/1099030?story_id=1099030

Ulali - Mother

Ain't Nuthin' But A She Thing