New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

…the nicknames that some Clinton aids use for the former president.

In Iowa, Wednesday, Bad Bill prevailed as Ron Fournier reports:

In the next 10 minutes, he used the word “I” a total of 94 times and mentioned “Hillary” just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife’s candidacy.

I think its clear that Bill Clinton is a great asset in his wife’s campaign–indeed she would probably not even be where she is if it weren’t for her husband. And perhaps it does help when he promotes his two terms in office. But it certainly does show that Bill still has somewhat of a chip on his shoulder and prioritizes his political reputation at times, even when he is campaigning for his wife.

It’s pretty funny, too.

Popularity: 8% [?]

For those who have heard of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, one of the first things they utter is, “Oh yea, isn’t that the Mormon guy?” Indeed, there was a major perception in the main stream media that Governor Romney would face serious obstacles in his quest for the Oval Office because of his religious beliefs. One of the reasons behind this is that polls show that more Americans’ would be willing to vote for a woman or an African-American than a Mormon. American’s should not vote for Hillary Clinton if she says that her gender will effect her decision making and policy, they should not support Obama if he claims that the color of his skin will alter his approach on issues, and they should not vote for Mitt Romney if he claims that the Church of Latter Day Saints will be driving his decision making. Yet, none of these candidates should be penalized for their personal characteristics as long as they will not influence their policies in the White House. If we do as Ryan proposes and analyze the faith of our candidates even more than we do now, then what is to stop us from lambasting public officials based on their race or gender?
Most people who are opposed to a Mormon politician claim that the religion is simply too odd or too strange, others’, such as Ryan observe the Church’s former policies of sexual and racial discrimination. It is true that blacks’ were not allowed to become members of the Mormon church until 1978 and it is also true that even today there is not a single woman that holds a high position within the LDS. Despite past policies of the Church, Ryan forgets to look at political history.

Michigan Governor George Romney, was one of first Governors in the country to support civil rights legislation. In 1962, Governor George Romney wrote the provision for the nation’s only constitutionally established Civil Rights Commission. There is no question that the Romney’s do believe in their faith and follow the teachings of their Church, but George Romney’s actions as a civil rights pioneer nearly two decades before his Church endorsed civil rights shows that true politicians put their oath of office above anything else. Like the majority of politicians in America, faith did not drive the policy’s of George Romney. Ryan was correct when he wrote, “the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney,” yet he seemed to take this as an exception, when he should note that like Romney’s father, most American politicians limit the influence (if any) their faith will have during their tenure in office.

It is imperative that religion does not heavily influence the political actions of our leaders. At the same time dismissing those beliefs is not only unlikely, but unadvisable. Ryan may want to examine Romney’s faith to ensure it does not poison society, but what is to stop evangelicals from examining the Catholic faith Ryan was born with? It is apparent what a slippery slope this could become, if we as a society begin to dismiss politicians based on their faith even if it will not influence their policy, then we will endanger the very foundations of American politics. For example, could one not question an Objectivist on his ability to remove Ayn Rand’s philosophy from his thought process if ever elected into office? Politicians should be judged on the policies that they have proposed. American’s should not weigh a candidates religion unless that person admits that it is or will be a significant influence upon their policy. The only candidate who has done so as of yet in this Presidential race is Mike Huckabee. Unless Senator Obama, or Governor Romney, or Senator Clinton says that their race, religion, or gender will influence them in office, then it is only fair that we solely examine their political record’s.

Popularity: 19% [?]

From the front page of the NYT:

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal — No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. ”)

This part of the bible not only kept LDS from permitting blacks in their church but it doubtlessly provided motivation for many Mormons to oppose the advancement of equality under law for blacks especially in the 1960s. The same bible story was used as a justification for slavery as late as the middle 19th century in America. Even as race relations improved it was not until 1978 that the Mormon Church opened admission for blacks.

Translate this to today as Mitt Romney runs for president. It appears that Romney is only experiencing minimal disadvantage because of his religion, which is a good sign. The reason for this is even better–the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney. This brings me to a bigger point that it is not simply enough to have a seperation of church and state, but there also should be a separation of church and politics in that a politician’s religious dogma should not affect their political decision making.

Its not enough to prevent laws which discriminate based on personal belief systems from being passed. The first amendment cannot check legislation which is motivated by religion but does not explicitly mention any. Hence it is important to pay attention to the religious implication of our political candidates. So far it appears like Romney’s relatively plain politics are not altered by his relatively absurd religious beliefs, but if we do not maintain a watchful eye over all our public figures the injury we could incur from the poison of religious politics is immeasurable.

Popularity: 21% [?]

-Ron Paul is on the rise, raising bundles of money including over $4 million (mainly over the internet) in one day which is the most raised by any candidate within a 24 hour time period. Additionally Paul has recently began to register on the polls, at about 4-4.5% in national polls and almost 7% in New Hampshire. As exciting as it is to have a true small government man getting national attention, Paul clearly has a low cealing and will not by any stretch of the imagination be on the GOP ticket.

-Mike Huckabee is also on the up and up. He is very appealing to the Christian right and also cutting into Romney’s lead in Iowa. The Governor is probably the most articulate speaker of the GOP bunch and appears very comfortable in his own skin. His numbers nationally have climbed to about 8.5% while in Iowa he is polling at an impressive 20% (about 8% behind Romney). Huckabee is a very religious candidate with a populist twist, but despite his political skill, the GOP is not quite in the position to be nominating the cultural conservative. For this reason I also discredit, to an extent, the talk of Huckabee being a smart veep option.

-Romney and McCain are both in moderately improving positions. As much as people seem to like McCain (or at least just me) when they see him in all his infinite candor, he has been exausted by national politics to the extent that getting nominated becomes difficult in the face of all those pols with blank(er) slates. Still, McCain could be a wise veep choice because of his exerience among other attributes. As a matter of fact, its likely that he’s Rudy’s first choice (Giuliani has already mentioned that he would be supporting McCain if he [Giuliani] were not running). Romney is definitely positioned as the top challenger to Giuliani. The question for him is whether the momentum he carries from (potential) Iowa, NH, and Michigan victories will be enough to overtake the national deficit he has against Rudy.

-For all the media’s efforts to find legitimate competition, there is little evidence that Mrs. Clinton should have trouble on the Democratic side. Even if she were to lose Iowa–where she is only ahead by a few percentage points at best–it is unlikely if that would be nearly enough to overturn her present standing in every other state. I have no good reason to believe, at present, that she should not win the nomination.

-Edwards is attacking Clinton more feverently recently but there is no sign that he is doing any better. There may be evidence that Obama is incurring the benefits of Edwards criticism of Clinton however. While these two trends are not definitive nationally it is apparent that Edwards’ numbers are sinking in Iowa and Obama’s numbers are augmenting in the same state. 

-I stick by the predictions I first made last November.

Popularity: 9% [?]

In a House hearing Congressman Ron Paul took issue with the basic logic of the Federal Reserve as well as this Fed’s recent cuts in interest rates in an Austrian inspired manner. Given, the Chaimen did not have much time to respond but I was surprised with how inadequate his response was in the time given. There were two main questions posed to Bernanke: a) what justifies the Federal Reserve’s inflationary nature (given, it this was somewhat a loaded issue) and b) why cut interest rates assuming that the current problem is provoked by an inflationary monetary policy.

To the first issue, Bernanke gave a weak one sentence answer regarding how the Fed is just doing the job that the Congress authorized them to do. His answer escapes the entire issue of what justifies that authorization in the first place. To the second issue the Chairman only alluded to how the Fed must factor both inflation and employment to achieve an optimal balance. Basically, it was clear that the two men were not on the same page. The exchange illuminated the simple differences in how mainstream economists and radical ones (Austrians for instance) see the subject.

Here is the video:

Popularity: 15% [?]