March 2014 Whose Party?

The Hill Chapel Hill Political Review

Vol. 13 Issue 4 March 2014

Whose Party?

The Battle for the Future of the GOP

The Hill Chapel Hill Political Review

Vol. 13 Issue 4 EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Brendan Cooley, Jon Buchleiter (in absentia) ONLINE MANAGING EDITOR Nikki Mandell (in absentia) INTERNATIONAL EDITOR Carol Abken NATIONAL EDITOR Richard Zheng STATE & LOCAL EDITOR Dain Clare ONLINE EDITORS Emily Foster, Matt Wotus ART DIRECTOR Mary Burke ASSISTANT ART DIRECTOR Tyler Vahan TREASURER Tess Landon DIRECTOR OF PR David Pingree

COLUMNISTS/BLOGGERS Brian Bartholomew, Camille Bossut, Derrick Flakoll, Allie Higgins, Nancy Smith, Zachary Williams STAFF WRITERS Clay Ballard, Kane Borders, Camille Bossut, Elizabeth Brown, Kurtis Brown, Parker Bruer, Brianna Cooper, Giulia Curcelli, David Farrow, Adriana Golindano, Allyesha Hall, Oliver Hamilton, Jamie Huffman, Danielle Joe, Jacob Johnson, David Joyner, Chloe Karlovich, Bobby Kawecki, Tess Landon, Henry Li, Conor Lynch, Ian McLin, Alex Montgomery, Katlyn Moseley, Nick Neuteufel, Hinal Patel, Sumeet Patwardhan, David Pingree, Caley Scheppegrell, Alex Schober, Brian Shields, Taylor Slate, David Snedecor, Ameer Sobhan, Jessica Stone, Avani Uppalapati, Eishante Wilkes, Alfre Wimberly, Savannah Wooten, Matt Wotus, Javier Zurita DESIGN STAFF Giulia Curcelli, Taylor Slate ART STAFF Rini Bahethi, David Wright, Ngozika Nwoko

From the Editor Today’s Republican Party is at a crossroads. The grassroots Tea Party movement that propelled it to electoral victories in 2010 has evolved into an increasingly public insurgency. In December, House Speaker John Boehner publically denounced some of these Tea Party organizations, saying, “Frankly, I just think they’ve lost all credibility.” How will the political cleavages within the GOP impact the party’s electoral prospects and its policy priorities? In this issue, we explore these cleavages and their implications.

Brendan Cooley, Editor-in-Chief

Send us your comments As part of our mission to promote political discussion on campus we welcome your comments and thoughts. Send us an email at thehillpr@gmail.com - no more than 250 words, please include your name, year and major for students or name and department for professors.

Mission Statement The Hill is the University of North Carolina’s only nonpartisan student political review. Our aim is to provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends.

We publish both print issues and maintain a website composed of in-depth feature stories, opinion columns, and plenty of accessible content designed to engage the campus in political discussion.

Nonpartisan Explained FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory

The Hill - Chapel Hill Political Review 3514E Frank Porter Graham Student Union Chapel Hill, NC 27514 thehillpr@gmail.com This publication was paid for in part by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $2.00 per copy Cover art by Rini Bahethi

2

The Hill is a medium for analysis of current affairs. Its primary mission is to analyze current events, trends, and phenomena happening within North Carolina, across the United States, and around the world. While it reserves some space for opinion and commentary, almost all work for The Hill avoids prescribing public policy solutions or advancing any ideology. Its articles are primarily concerned with explaining and contextualizing current affairs, rather than engaging in public policy debates. However, The Hill also accepts that its writers will bring their own unique experiences and viewpoints to their work, and encourages its writers to write colorful, engaging, and even controversial pieces while protecting the magazine’s reputation as a source of reasoned and well-researched analysis.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

Table of Contents State

National

6

North Carolina Senate race

9

Healthier school lunches

7

New fracking regulations

10

Republicans court youth vote

8

Carrboro’s future

11

GOP minority outreach

12

Factions in Republican Party

International

Perspectives

14

Climate treaty politics

20

Common core standards

15

Spying and U.S.-EU relations

21

Taper Tantrum

16

Turkish unrest

21

Recaping the Sochi Olympics

17

Rapprochement with Iran

22

Book Review: The Frackers

18

Politics of foreign aid

19

North Korean turmoil

The Hill Political Review March 2014

3

Around the World A look back at last month’s international headlines 1. Kiev, Ukraine Political instability continues in Ukraine. Violent protests shook the country following President Viktor Yanukovich’s decision in November 2013 to favor economic ties with Russia in lieu of signing an Association and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. Ultimately, the Ukranian Parliament voted to oust Yanukovich and declare new Presidential elections, to be held in May. The turmoil is at the heart of a geopolitical struggle between Russia and Western Europe and the United States.

1 3

2. Sochi, Russia Despite worries over terrorist threats from jihadi groups from the North Caucus and controversy over the repression of LGBT rights in Russia, the 2014 Winter Olympics concluded without incident in Sochi, Russia. Russia deployed 37,000 police and security officers to Sochi for the duration of the games. The Sochi Olympics also garnered criticism from worldwide LGBT rights groups, who were concerned with rising incidences of homophobic violence in Russia and are particularly angered

by Russia’s ambiguous “anti-gay propaganda” bill.

2

4

3. Tunis, Tunisia Three years after the ouster of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011, the Constituent Assembly charged with drafting a new Constitution voted with an overwhelming majority to approve their creation on January 26. The new Tunisian Constitution includes compromises between the Islamic and secular forces that have vied for power since Ben Ali’s removal. It recognizes legal parity between men and women and guarantees freedom of worship, though it also decrees Islam as the state religion and prohibits “attacks on the sacred.”

4

4. Bangkok, Thailand Ongoing anti-government protests have disrupted Thailand since December 2013 in opposition to the influence of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed in a coup in 2006, on the current government.

His sister Yingluck was elected to be Prime Minister in 2011. Increasing violence between pro- and anti-government forces brought about a state of emergency, and the general election on February 2 was disrupted by violent demonstrations, and voting was suspended in many provinces. The Election Commission has rescheduled voting in April.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

By the Numbers: Party Demographics Democrats younger, more racially diverse than Republicans

%

61% White

ic pan His

ic an sp

r 7% Othe

21% Bla ck

5

r Othe 2% Black 4% 87% White

10%

Hi

Party Make-up by Age

Republican

Democrat

13 %

17 %

18 - 29 year olds

33 %

32 %

30 - 49 year olds

50 - 64 year olds

30 %

31 %

65+ year olds

23 %

19 %

The Hill Political Review March 2014

5

State

Greg Brannon (R)

Sen. Kay Hagan (D)

State Rep. Thom Tillis (R)

Republicans compete to challenge Hagan By: Elizabeth Brown

T

he race for one of North Carolina’s two Senate seats is heating up. Current Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan will run a race against the Republican nominee, who will be selected in primary elections in May. Potential nominees are already emerging in the Republican Party.

Greg Brannon has taken an early lead, according to some polls, and represents a shift away from mainstream politics in the Republican Party. A pro-life OB-GYN new to elected politics, Brannon has received endorsements from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a self-identified Libertarian, pundit Ann Coulter and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson.

Abortion seems to be the issue closest to Brannon’s heart. He testified before North Carolina House committees recommending that women seeking abortion undergo a mandatory twenty-four hour waiting periods, have a sonogram done, and be informed that abortion is linked to breast cancer (a claim that has been denied by The American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institute, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Brannon also serves as medical director for Hand of Hope, which operates many crisis pregnancy centers in the state.

Brannon speaks of the late Senator Jesse Helms, who died without renouncing his support of segregation, as a “modern hero.” He has spoken in favor of nullification, or the ability of a state to declare national laws void within their boundaries, even co-sponsoring a rally for nullification with the League of the South, a south6

ern secessionist group.

Brannon has claimed the title of the Tea Party candidate, making sure to distance hinself from the mainstream Republican party. He paints State House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) as his opposite, writing, “My opponent is an establishment insider who believes he is entitled to North Carolina’s Senate seat, and he’s marching to Washington to cut deals that benefit his cronies. The Big Government extablishment knows I’m not one of ‘their guys.’ And they want nothing more than to see the Tea Party candidate go down in flames this election.”

Tillis is another early frontrunner in the Republican primary election.

After a career with businesses like IBM and PricewaterhouseCoopers, he rose quickly through the ranks in North Carolina politics to become Speaker. After the sweeping Republican victories of 2012, he presided over a Republican House that, along with a Republican Senate and Governor, passed a multitude of conservatives and pro-business bills. Tillis is adept at fundraising, with multiple large sponsors contributing thousands of dollars to his campaign.

The primary race is crowded, with five other candidates vying for the nomination. Mark Harris is a Baptist minister from Forsyth County; Phil Berger is a state Senate leader; Heather Grant is a nurse; Bill Flynn is a radio show announcer from Winston-Salem; Ted Alexander is the former mayor of Shelby, NC. At this rate, it will be difficult for any candidate to achieve the 40 percent of the vote necessary to avoid a runoff. Most candidates will draw at least a small percentage from

their regional or ideological constituencies.

This election will be an important gauge for determining where the heart of the Republican Party lies—with mainstream conservatives backed by business interests, or with the grassroots conservatism of the Tea Party.

The results of this election will have major effects on the political climate of the country. For one, the race this fall will help determine whether the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate or lose it to the Republicans. North Carolina is one of four crucial swing states with strong Republican presence but Democratic incumbents. A Senate turnover could change the balance of power for the last two years of President Obama’s term. A messy, nasty or drawn out primary could help Hagan’s chances come November.

It’s difficult to determine Hagan’s chances in the upcoming election. One one hand, her approval ratings have beem slipping along with President Obama’s, suffering from the difficulties in rolling out the Affordable Care Act, which has been particularly unpopular in North Carolina. However, the news may not be all bad. “When voter anger was focused on what was happening in Raleigh over the summer it really helped Kay Hagan’s poll numbers,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “With that anger geared more toward Washington now, this is again looking like it will be one of the most competitive races in the country next year.”

Hagan has also raised a considerable amount of money for her campaign, out-raising Tillis seven to one so far.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

State

Citizens, activists target fracking policies Much is at stake for those impacted by new state regulations By: Matt Wotus

T

he debate over fracking in North Carolina has heated up since the state legalized it in 2012. Many of the ongoing deliberations are based off of policies being implemented by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission.

Two such policies are split estates and forced pooling, which deal with property rights. A split estate occurs when property owners do not have the rights to the minerals underneath their land. Forced pooling, also known as compulsory pooling, says gas and oil companies can drill on a piece of private property without the permission of the owners if a certain number of owners with land adjacent to the property sell their mineral rights to the companies.

The latter policy affects Vince and Jeanne Rhea of Sanford, North Carolina. After retiring to a house in Lee County last year, the two learned that an area rich with natural gas deposits is beneath the property. However, because of forced pooling, the Rheas may not even have a say as to whether or not gas companies can drill on their property.

“We were hot. That is putting it mildly,” Vince Rhea said in a phone interview. “That’s just the most terrible thing they can do. The worst part is they are using eminent domain,” he continued. Eminent domain allows the government to take private property and use it for public goods if it benefits the public.

“That’s the part that bothers us. We happen to own our mineral rights, but we still have no say on whether we want to sell them or not,” Vince said.

The fight for property rights will continue for at least another 11 months, as fracking is scheduled to begin in Lee County in 2015.

Another policy dealing with frackThe Hill Political Review March 2014

ing, passed by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission just last month, creates a “setback” rule, meaning that there must be at least 650 feet between the wellhead at the surface where the fracking is taking place and other buildings.

Therese Vick doesn’t think that 650 feet is sufficient. Vick is the community organizer for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, a non-profit environmental organization. “In states where fracking has been going on for years, the setbacks are getting bigger, almost without exception,” Vick said in an email.

Another regulation passed by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission last month allows fracking companies to keep the chemicals they pump underground a secret from residents. If put into law, it will require the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review any trade secret claim made by fracking companies.

This differs from on-site operations, as federal law currently requires operators to keep a list with all chemicals used, and turn that list over to public

officials in the instance there is a spill or accident.

With the state legislature still needing to vote on these laws, and fracking set to begin in North Carolina next year, the debate over fracking is heating up, and for those like the Rheas and Vick, the fight against fracking won’t end anytime soon.

THE HILL/DAVID WRIGHT 7

State

A CHANGING CARRBORO

By: Caroline Fite

B “Carrboro is the place to be. It has a future.”

-Kevin Callaghan, Acme Food and Beverage Co.

8

ig changes are happening in downtown Carrboro as the city pushes toward continued development. Over the last year, Carrboro has opened a Hampton Inn and a Hickory Tavern, has reopened the Carrboro PTA Thrift Shop, and currently plans to redevelop the Carrboro Arts Center.

According to Carrboro Mayor, Lydia Lavelle, “One of the primary benefits of development is an increased commercial tax base and the increased revenue from tourism.” With the introduction of new businesses, Lavelle hopes to create a town full of attraction and excitement that will lead to a robust downtown economy.

Many business owners downtown support the project and are hopeful concerning the future of Carrboro. Nathan Milian, owner of Carr Mill Mall, says, “We welcome new businesses.” Kevin Callaghan, owner of Acme Food and Beverage Co., explains that by investing in growth and development, “Carrboro is the place to be. It has a future.”

However, despite the positive outlook towards the town’s renovations and revamping, there are several issues that accompany the growth. With the additional businesses and the continued construction, the streets are congested and parking is limited.

Callaghan feels that the roads and parking were built for a dif-

ferent town than the one that is arising.

One way that Mayor Lavelle plans to overcome these issues is to push for alternative transportation downtown such as biking, walking, and public transit. A new parking deck has helped to alleviate the traffic problem as well.

Another concern about development is the fear that new establishments could detract from the Carborro’s unique flavor.

Sheryl Furbis is a member of the Carrboro Appearance Commission, and explains that the town is going to great lengths to ensure that Carrboro preserves the appearance and spirit of the unique town. As an advisory board, the Appearance Commission reviews every application that a new business is required to submit before building. The Commission tweaks the plans so that the architecture, landscape, and disposition of the business match the other buildings in the area.

Additionally, citizens are able to input their opinions about new projects to ensure that all new businesses align with the interests of the town. Furbis says, “We seek to honor Carrboro’s history, but look toward economic development.”

The coming months and years will reveal whether Carrboro is able to uphold its goal of balancing historic preservation and economic expansion.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

National

Healthy or hungry?

Supported by federal initiatives, schools implement plans to improve quality of food By: Tess Landon

I

n an effort to overcome child hunger and encourage a healthier lifestyle, the Obama’s have advocated for a variety of new “health-conscious” laws enabling a healthier environment for kids. One of their objectives was the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a federally funded program providing free or reduced-price meals for students from low-income households.

A study by the National Center for Education reported that as of June 2013, 47.5% of students were eligible for NSLP. Obama signed into law the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 which allotted extra funding per meal to participating schools who revamp their current menu by supplementing more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean meats. The new requirements of the HHFKA are specific, requiring more nutritious ingredients and banning calorie-, sodium-, and sugar-heavy ones.

Nearly all public school districts already abiding by the NSLP adopted the changes. A few districts have even embraced the changes as an opportunity to give their school meal programs a fresh start, not solely a menu makeover but a chance to redefine current strategies for cost efficiency and implementation of programs to come. A notable example is the initiative taken by Kentucky Department of Education, who planned proactively to ease their school districts into the new program. While KDE may exist as an outlier in this situation, HHFKA was successfully accepted by a majority of the public school systems. A study of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Kids’ Safe and Healthful Foods Project said that 94% of school nutrition officials surveyed believe the plan will be completely executed in their domain by the end of the school year.

The rest, approximately 500 of the 100,000 participants, were either financially coerced to back out of the Act or received backlash from the The Hill Political Review March 2014

community. The challenges faced by the schools that dropped out of the new healthy initiative revolved around unsustainable costs increases and concerns that the children were not getting enough food because they were throwing it away. Surprisingly, the higher costs are not due to a healthier selection of food, rather the expenses associated with preparing the food (labor, training, and equipment) – which Congress remedied early this year by passing a budget including $25 million for schools to purchase new kitchen equipment. As for the claims of malnourished students,

HFFKA is being augmented with provisions such as Smart Snacks in School which targets vending machines and school-run convenient stores by instigating nutrition standards for all snack food items and beverages sold outside cafeteria meals. Not only is this provision attempting to extract unhealthy foods from the school environment, experts hope it will deter students from seeking out unhealthy alternatives to school meals as well as provide an extra avenue for food service revenue.

The federal alterations to the NSLP may seem drastic, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Small-scale and local initiatives, such as Farm to Lunch, are being enacted around the nation with goals similar to that of HHFKA, finding healthy, cost-effective alternatives for school lunches which have proved to be more beneficial than originally intended.

9

National

Republicans court Millennials By: Giulia Curcelli

W

ith the many problems plaguing the Republican Party, appealing to Millennial voters is near the forefront of the GOP’s political agenda, but they have struggled to connect with the most ethnically and racially diverse generation in American history. These are the individuals, born from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, who have played a decisive role in recent presidential elections. If the GOP hopes to improve in the next round of elections, the party must adapt its image and policies to attract younger voters.

The election of 2004 saw a spike in youth voter turnout that continued to rise in the election of 2008. As Pew reports, Millennials vote more Democratic than older voters and thus played a decisive role in President Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012, even though youth voter turnout was down in 2012 to 45 percent of eligible voters. Though young voters lean left, a plurality identified as Independent in a 2012 survey from Georgetown and the Public Religion Research Institute. Thirty-three percent are Democrats, 23 percent are Republicans, and of the 45 percent who are Independents, 58 percent lean Democratic and 39 percent lean Republican.

As these statistics show, Millenials do not vote as a single unified bloc but are

10

instead rather divided. The Democratic Party does not necessarily have a lock on the Millennial vote.

Consequently, the GOP has the opportunity to draw in some of these young, independent voters, but they must are unlikely to be able to do so without altering their political trajectory. Many sources—think tanks, newspapers, and the Republicans themselves—agree that the GOP’s conservative positions on social issues alienate young Americans. The Republican National Committee’s March 2013 autopsy report concluded that minorities must be “respected and understood” should the GOP hope to gain their support for their economic policies. The College Republican National Committee took this self-critique a step further in its June 2013 report, saying that Millennials view the party as “closed-minded, racist, rigid, and old-fashioned.” Mary Kate Carey, speechwriter for former President George H.W. Bush, proposes that the GOP “make itself the party of ideas again” and focus on the “case for flexible, free-market, limited-government solutions.” If the GOP cannot hope to earn a sizeable portion of the Millennial vote while maintaining its positions on social issues, it can instead appeal to the positive perception young Americans have for libertarianism and their entrepreneurial spirit, an approach that many Republicans support.

Furthermore, Millennials are increasingly less religiously affiliated, creating a conundrum for the Republican Party with its oft-used religious rhetoric and close ties to the Religious Right.

Twenty-five percent of college-aged Millennials are currently religiously unaffiliated, including 14 percent who do not believe in God. Not only do young voters disagree with organized Christianity on many social issues, but a significant source of disconnect between these voters and the GOP stems from the party’s animosity toward science.

The Public Religion Research Institute reports that 64 percent of Millennials believe in evolution and 42 percent believe the Earth is warming because of human activity.

Despite agreement that strengthening its appeal to Millennial voters should be a priority of the Republican Party, this shift will not be easy. As Global Studies Professor Jonathan Weiler explains, “GOP leaders are walking a complicated line between broadening their appeal on the one hand without alienating their base on the other.”

The Millennials are a generation wary of U.S. involvement overseas, more aware of economic mobility problems, and less afraid of strong government, complicating GOP outreach efforts.

“Rhetoric alone won’t work here,” Weiler said. “It’s going to be an uphill climb for Republicans.”

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

National

GOP faces headwinds in minority outreach By: Ameer Sobhan

T

party faces within its own ranks. This was on display when the immigration reform bill was passed in the Senate in June 2013 with just 14 of the 45 Republicans senators voting in favor of the bill. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), largely seen as the face of the faction of the Republican Party responsible for the government shutdown during October 2013, was one of the staunchest critics of the bill.

However, a clear sign of renewed interest was seen earlier this month when Republican leaders in the House released a document that laid out the “principles” based on which they seek to pursue immigration reform. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to this development by pointing out that it was unclear whether these principles would allow for the provision of eventual citizenship, a thorny issue among Republicans internally because of some of the more conservative members of the party who believe this should not be allowed.

Whether or not the GOP is successful in reaching out to minorities in time to prevent massive losses like the ones it saw in 2012, it is clear that the Party must reevaluate its efforts in reaching out to minorities by designing a clear and articulate strategy that helps it draw more minority voters into its electorate base.

THE HILL/NGOZIKA NWOKO

he U.S. Presidential Election of 2012 was a wake-up call for the Republican Party in more ways than one. For the first time in the history of U.S. presidential elections, there were more African-American voters than white voters who voted for a candidate. Research indicates that to broaden their voter base and to prevent losses on the same scale as the ones it suffered in the 2012 election the GOP needs to take immediate steps to win over more minority voters. This is imperative not only because minority voters – Asians, African-Americans and Hispanics – are set to form the majority of the electorate by 2050, but also because the effects of the changing demographics of the electorate are already evident.

According to The Brookings Institution, white voters as a share of the total number of eligible voters in 2012 was 71.1 percent, compared to 73.4 percent in the 2008 election and 75.5 percent in 2004. This is problematic for the GOP because white voters tend to generally vote for Republican Party candidates.

On the other hand, the number of eligible black voters was 12.0 percent in 2012 from 11.8 percent in 2008 and 11.6 percent in 2004 while Hispanic voters rose to 10.8 percent from 9.5 percent in 2008 and 8.1 percent in

2004. From these statistics, it is clear that the number of eligible minority voters is increasing consistently from election to election. If minority voters are to form the majority of the electorate in the future, the GOP cannot afford to be casual in its efforts to promote and enact policies and legislation that is favored by these voters.

One of the primary issues of interest for Hispanic voters is immigration reform. Spearheaded by the efforts of the so-called “Gang of 8” in January 2013, a bipartisan initiative for immigration effort was attempted by prominent Republican senators including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Arriving on the coattails of President Obama’s reelection, this development indicated the GOP’s realization of the need to broaden its voter base to reach out to minority voters.

Despite passing an immigration reform bill in the Senate in June 2013, initiatives have stalled in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives with many Republicans in Congress being opposed to a deal that would grant a legal path to citizenship to immigrants currently living in the United States illegally. The Republican Party continues to have a difficult time reaching out to minorities, not only because of the absence of a genuine push for reform, but primarily because of the dissent the

The Hill Political Review March 2014

11

National

The Battle for the By: Sumeet Patwardhan

The Fiscal Conservative

Ted Cruz Texas Senator

The Social Conservative

Rick Perry Texas Governor

12

W

hat does it mean to be Republican? In today’s political climate, the answer to this question has become increasingly unclear. Politicians are often associated with specific ideological factions, and voters tend to associate themselves with these specific factions within the larger GOP. Clearly, to be a Republican is to be a member of a political party that contains conflicting beliefs cast under one, supposedly unified, vision. In order to understand how this factionalization will change the party long-term, we have to understand the different factors involved in this process.

First, an examination of each faction will shed some light on these conflicting beliefs within the party. There are five clear schools of thought in the current Republican Party – fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, and libertarians. While fiscal conservatives aim to reduce government spending and regulation, social conservatives aim to increase governmental control over social behaviors seen as sinful, unethical, or extreme, namely, abortion, pornography, and gay marriage. Paleo-conservatives specifically focus on decrying multiculturalism, emphasizing the importance of American national identity and its relation to immigration restrictions. Neo-conservatives affirm the benefits of an interventionist foreign policy and pro-Israel stance, while libertarians largely support a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a generally laissez-faire attitude towards both fiscal and social affairs.

To separate these beliefs into factions is not to say that these factions encompass all conservative political stances. Rather, drawing these lines provides a useful theoretical model for understanding each belief in isolation. The reality is that most modern conservative politicians meld these beliefs into hybrid ideologies while still tending to lean towards a particular persuasion. For example, the Tea Party movement is an example of citizens who are both fiscally and socially conservative, distinguishing them from the more socially liberal libertarians or interventionist neo-conservatives. On the other hand, some politicians like Rand Paul heavily rely on a particular ideology, in this case, libertarianism. Though the GOP is separated into factions, individual politicians can pick and choose from different, sometimes conflicting, stances.

With all of these varied factions struggling for central control, four important factors will influence which ideology becomes the guiding principle for the future of the GOP: geography, funding, brand, and strategy.

A brief look at geographic voting patterns reveals that the GOP’s main support comes from the South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain region, and Alaska. These guaranteed bases of support contrast with the Democrats’ hold over the West Coast and the Northeast.

Moreover, while the Democrats concentrate in urban areas, the GOP centers on rural areas and ‘exurbs,’ which are usually beyond the suburban portions of a city. Because people are increasingly moving to cities from rural areas, especially Millennials, the GOP long-term strategy must include an understanding of how to broaden their geographic base of support. Moreover, the South’s more conservative factions do not always fall in line with broader, more moderate, conservative views, another issue that might affect the ability of the party to rally together before the 2016 presidential election.

Any discussion of party politics has to include a discussion of the

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

National

Future of the GOP fundraising bases of each faction. Instead of analyzing funding in the context of the five ideological factions identified, it may be clearer to limit this to the context of primarily two factions – a mainstream faction and a reformist faction. The mainstream faction includes most neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and some social conservatives. In contrast, the reformist faction primarily consists of Tea Party members, less compromising libertarians, the Religious Right, and other conservatives emphasizing ideological purity. During 2013, the New York Times reported that reformist faction received more funding than the mainstream faction, signifying that they do have the ability to compete for power within the party.

Moving away from external factors involved in factionalization, brand is a really important framework through which to view the splintered nature of the GOP today. Though being a Republican does not mean that one is a rich, old, white male, the party is often portrayed as such. Indeed, some even consider Republicans racist, classist, and sexist – just think back to the media uproar over Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment in the 2012 presidential debates. Though the majority of Republicans do not hold such views, more extreme factions of the GOP cause public perception to shift towards this understanding. Most of the party lies within the mainstream faction, and voters that register as Independents identify as moderate, accordingly making them shy away from a party increasingly cast as the ‘radical’ right. If the GOP is to overcome this backlash, it needs to rebrand itself, interestingly, as the party it once used to be – a party pursuing liberty as its ideal.

Along with considering brand, we have to consider the GOP political strategy, particularly in relation to social issues. Now that Millennials are at and beyond voting age, Republicans will have to stray away from the social conservative stance if they wish to attract these voters. Young voters are increasingly turned off by a hardline stance against abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and immigration reform. Moreover, the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff crises decreased faith in the GOP’s ability to compromise. While some saw their political strategy as blackmail, others more reservedly said that the GOP seemed unwilling to sacrifice anything of significance in return for passing a budget or increase in the debt ceiling. Thus, regardless of which faction starts gaining more geographic, monetary, or brand-based clout in the GOP as a whole, it seems probable that the mainstream, more moderate, elements of the GOP will best be able to attract young voters.

What it means to be a Republican today is clearly a complicated issue. Though geography, funding, brand, and strategy affect each faction’s ability to command control of the party, perhaps the most important issue is the tension between ideological purity and pragmatic compromise. The faction most willing to become more moderate, to compromise more faithfully and comprehensively with opponents, will have the best chance at attracting new voters. If each faction continues to cling desperately to its own stance, if the party continues to lack a central rallying voice, and if internal rivalries continue to hinder compromise with the left side of the political landscape, then the GOP will continue to lack cohesion. In this case, the Democrats will inevitably continue to drive America’s political direction.

The Hill Political Review March 2014

The Neoconservative

John McCain Arizona Senator

The Libertarian

Rand Paul Kentucky Senator

13

International

Give and take In addressing climate change, states seek to place burdens on others A Brief History of International Climate Agreements United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992 • Aims to combat the increase in average global

temperature and resulting environmental changes

• Involves over 100 countries • Minimally binding • Holds conferences to discuss necessary policy

Kyoto Protocol, 1997 • Adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on Dec. 11, 1997, and entered into force on Feb. 16, 2005

• Sets binding obligations and targets geared at emission reduction

• Recognizes developed nations as primarily

responsible for the increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.

• Places a larger burden on developed nations

under the premise the UNFCC describes as “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Majuro Declaration, 2013 • Signed on Sept. 5, 2013, at Majuro in the Marshall Islands

• Initiative of the Pacific Islands Forum • Recognizes the need for strengthened national

systems to “plan for, access, deliver, absorb and monitor climate change and for donor countries to continue to simplify and harmonize their assessment, implementation and reporting processes for financing projects directed to climate change adaptation, mitigation and risk reduction.”

14

By: Allyesha Hall

A

contentious issue to its core, climate change remains a hotly debated topic in terms of which policy choices can realistically mitigate the worst of its effects. In 1995, the inadequacy of the provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change prompted a desire for stronger measures to mitigate impending environmental impacts and resulted in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which entered into force in 2005. The Kyoto Protocol set binding obligations geared at greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and recognized developed nations as primarily responsible for the increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. The Protocol thus places a larger burden on developed nations under the premise the UNFCCC describes as “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

In 2012, the Doha Amendment was added to the Kyoto Protocol and renewed commitments for willing parties, and revised the list of GHGs to be reported by those involved. The UNFCCC reports that, “During the second commitment period, parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020.”

This past November, parties to the UNFCCC convened at COP19, the 19th yearly session of the Conference of the Parties held in Warsaw. According to Joseph Zammit-Lucia, president of WOLFoundation and a partner at Camunico, the Warsaw talks were counter-productive.

Delegations approach international climate negotiations with the intention to convince other countries to make greater emissions concessions in order to protect their own national interests. Donald Hornstein, the Aubrey L. Brooks Professor of Law at UNC, suggests that the ubiquitous nature of climate change requires cooperation – not a dog-eat-dog strategy these countries have come to assume. Hornstein attributes the difficulty to uphold international climate treaties to this uncooperative attitude, which leads to a game of give-or-take between developed and developing countries.

The COP19 established a timetable marking the first quarter of 2015 as the deadline when countries must present their contributions to reducing GHGs that will become fully enforced in 2020. The U.S. government announced that it would reach its post 2020-targets in the first quarter of 2015, but this action remains contingent on the U.S. Congressional elections in autumn 2014.

Countries are hesitant to adopt this timetable because it forces them to commit to future emission reduction targets. In comparison, the European Union has the most advanced GHG reduction standards. Fiona Harvey, environmental correspondent for The Guardian, believes that for the EU, “The proposal likely to be put forward is for a 40 percent cut in emissions, relative to 1990 levels.”

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Rhetorical bluster Spying revelations unlikely to transform U.S.-EU relations By: Clay Ballard

T

he political discourse over recent U.S. spying revelations has brought into question the long-term trajectory of U.S.-EU relations after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and 34 other heads of state found one of their closest allies, the United States, monitoring their phones.

However, the fallout from these spying revelations is unlikely to have a lasting effect on the relationship between the United States and European Union. Obama’s latest promise to end “friendly surveillance” is aimed merely at subduing further damage to international relations following the outcry from heads of state like Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil. Rousseff recently spoke before the U.N. General Assembly calling the spying a “breach of international law.” Yet the U.S. promise to cease eavesdropping may prove to be little but rhetoric; spying will likely continue. Obama even laid out explicit exceptions to this ban in his own speech, curtailing his promise to stop spying with, “unless there is a compelling national security purpose [to eavesdrop].” This language leaves an incredible amount of maneuverability for changes in

THE HILL/RINI BAHETHI The Hill Political Review March 2014

THE HILL/RINI BAHETHI

Obama’s foreign policy concerning friendly surveillance.

The United States is not the only nation guilty of spying.

In the same documents that Edward Snowden released, it was revealed that the United Kingdom tapped into foreign delegates’ emails and blackberries during the 2009 G20 summit in London. James Andrew Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, stated, “All big countries use espionage, and some of the countries that are complaining spy on the U.S.” The anger directed towards the United States is in part a backlash against the United States’ efforts at international policing from its traditional position as hegemon. The issue of surveillance is another route of criticism from which heads of state can hope to affect the status quo. However, without significant international action to curtail U.S. surveillance, the shattered trust between the United States and its allies because of these revelations is likely to be another passing criticism.

The short-term relational impact from the unveiling of the NSA’s international surveillance programs is more evident. Threats from the EU to cancel trade talks and similar volatile discourse will cloud discussion in the coming months. This is especially true because it is uncertain what new information Snowden may reveal concerning U.S. surveillance programs. The State Department has acknowledged the challenges that these revelations have created, but they may not prove significant in the long-term relationship between the United States and its allies. The State Department has stated that the United States has “not seen an across-the board impact on our foreign policy.” Until visible legislation or policy change is created within the United States or its associated allies and international organizations, these challenges may evaporate as volatile rhetoric accompanied with inaction.

15

International

Trouble in Turkey Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan remains in power after year of protest and scandal By: David Snedecor

I

t could be argued that no political leader had a worse year than Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2013. Erdogan, the longtime prime minister of Turkey, spent the summer attempting to quell mass protests against his rule before ending the year with an enormous graft scandal that rocked the country to its core. With his grasp on power looking more tenuous by the day, Erdogan has not changed his behavior in the slightest. If anything, the increasingly autocratic tendencies that ignited the protest movement have been intensified. Long renowned for its stability and democracy, Erdogan’s Turkey now seems to be sliding into the morass of corruption and illiberality more often attributed to its Middle Eastern neighbors.

The main reason why Turkey was not already a struggling state racked with instability lies chiefly with the efforts of Mustafa Atatürk in the 1920s to create a secular democracy out of the remnants of the vanquished Ottoman Empire. Modern-day Turkey was built upon those progressive reforms, whose permanency was ensured by a military encouraged to intervene whenever the government became too powerful.

The Turkish people suffered through years of incompetent, shortlived administrations until Erdogan and his Justice & Development Party, otherwise known as AKP, came to power a little over a decade ago. His mildly Islamic, pro-business stance resonated with weary voters and he quickly became the most charismatic, successful national leader recent decades, perhaps even since Atatürk. Erdogan instituted a number of needed reforms and led the economy to new 16

heights; under his rule, per capita income skyrocketed, exports increased tenfold, and hundreds of new hospitals and schools were built.

Hidden amongst this overwhelmingly positive economic news, however, was Erdogan’s gradual, calculated attempt to wrest influence from the military in order to use it to tilt the country towards repression and social conservatism. Whether cleverly hidden within constitutional amendments or broadcasted more plainly with the trials of hundreds of coup-plotters in the military, Erdogan slowly but surely consolidated his power at the expense of the military and the judiciary.

The other thorn in his side, the press, was dealt with by the prosecution and incarceration of over 50 journalists for supposedly violating the recently passed anti-terror laws.

The public’s growing awareness of Erdogan’s maneuvering and his continual passage of restrictive laws created a burgeoning sense of resentment among Turkish people, which exploded in June 2013 when he announced plans for cutting down trees in Istanbul’s beloved Taksim Square to make room for commercial spaces. Thousands of people gathered peacefully to protest the decision and were then brutally attacked by government forces in a pre-dawn raid, setting off angry riots throughout the country.

Remarkably, the protestors belonged to many different ideologies,

religions, and classes but were all united by their disapproval of Erdogan’s autocratic leanings. Turkey convulsed with violence for many weeks but Erdogan refused to concede to their demands, calling the protestors “terrorists” amidst other similarly incendiary rhetoric.

In December, Erdogan’s image was further sullied when a corruption probe netted several sons of cabinet members, and Erdogan promptly fired hundreds of police officers, several prosecutors, and rewrote the laws to prevent further investigations when he realized his own would soon be caught. In addition to making a complete mockery of the judicial system, Erdogan blamed the whole incident on a “parallel state” he thinks exists within his own government, comprised of the followers of exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen. In response, Erdogan continues to purge the judiciary and pass many strict new laws that chip away at the Turks’ eroding rights.

Erdogan wants to become president and shape government even more drastically through dissolving the parliament, but the likelihood of that happening remains murky; although his popularity has certainly declined precipitously, there is a dearth of worthy opponents to challenge him. One thing remains clear, however: the Turkish people have lost faith in their once-revered leader and he is showing no attempt to regain it.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Détente with Iran?

By: Camille Bossut

D

espite familiar epithets such as the “Great Satan” and the “Axis of Evil,” the American and Iranian governments have not always been so mutually hostile.

Prior to its revolution in 1979, Iran was one of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East. Iran acted as a policeman for the region and cooperated extensively with the United States on matters of international politics and economics. But as the Cold War heated up, the United States found itself confronted with the quintessential choice between access to Iranian oil or affirmation of the democratic transition in Iran. Unfortunately for the future of U.S.-Iranian relations, oil won.

In 1953, the CIA in conjunction with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, staged a coup of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohamed Mossadegh. Mossadegh, who was widely popular for his socialist policies, had angered the United States and Israel in his decision to nationalize Iranian oil. Both the CIA and Mossad cooperated with the reinstated Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi to develop SAVAK, Iran’s internal intelligence agency. Backed by hundreds of millions of American dollars, SAVAK ruthlessly rounded up, tortured, and killed political dissidents and soon became the most feared institution in Iran. In 1979, Iranians successfully deposed the Shah, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile to seize power. After Iranian revolutionaries took American embassy workers hos-

tage and held them for 444 days shortly following Khomeini’s accession, the United States imposed a round of sanctions against Iran and terminated its diplomatic ties. The two heads of state would not speak personally with one another until 2013.

However, with the election last June of Hassan Rouhani, the future of U.S.-Iranian relations is looking increasingly optimistic.

Rouhani was elected as a moderate willing to reengage the United States and Europe. With a determination to reverse Iran’s isolationism and have decades of painful economic sanctions lifted, Iran and the international community reached a historic interim nuclear agreement last November. In the Joint Plan of Action, Iran agreed to freeze parts of its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran will receive close to 700 billion dollars in sanctions relief with no additional sanctions imposed. In exchange, Iran agreed to have its program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and to halt specific forms of uranium enrichment.

This rapprochement brings a myriad of benefits to both Iran and the international community. First, in engaging the international economy, Iran obtains the possibility of building an increasingly dynamic and powerful economy. Further, such cooperation has potential to impact Western-Middle Eastern relations more broadly.

Al-Monitor journalist Mustafa Al-Faqih argues a potential deal could result in a “fundamental Middle East shift”: “moreover, it falls on Washington to

decide to lift the embargo on Iran, allowing Tehran to achieve international and regional gains and to move comfortable in the Gulf region and beyond. These cards in the hands of the U.S. represent a strong temptation to Iran, especially at this stage.”

A fundamental accomplishment achieved in this deal is the lengths to which American and European leaders went to avoid engaging in military conflict, despite pressure from Israel, one of Iran’s greatest enemies and the United States’ closest allies. In holding out for this deal, the Obama administration and American policymakers signaled their willingness to pursue diplomatic solutions first and military involvement secondarily, if at all. In pressuring Netanyahu to stand aside and wait for the international community to reach a deal, Obama averted the mistake of hasty military involvement as in Iraq and Afghanistan. His administration also signaled its ability to stand firm in the name of long-term peace and security, even at the behest of hawkish Israeli policymakers. For now, one of the United States’ most challenging foreign policy goals, limiting Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, was resolved through economic pressure and diplomatic compromise as opposed to force of arms.

The nuclear deal reached last November and Rouhani’s increasingly optimistic rhetoric indicate the possibility for the normalization of relations between the two countries, a development that may positively impact U.S.-Middle East relations more broadly.

The road to rapprochement, June 2013 - present Hassan Rouhani is elected as a moderate and reformist. Shortly afterwards, he makes public statements suggesting renewing relations with the West.

Obama makes a personal phone call to Rouhani, marking the first conversation between Iranian and American leaders in over 30 years.

Rouhani meets Western leaders to negotiate a deal for Iran to reduce its capacity to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief.

Parties sign the Joint Plan of Action in which Iran agrees to halt portions of its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and repayment.

The interim agreement goes into effect. The United States schedules its first payment of $550 million to be transferred on February 1st.

JUNE

SEPTEMBER

NOVEMBER

NOVEMBER

JANUARY

The Hill Political Review March 2014

17

International

Politics of foreign aid U.S. aid policy driven by strategic and humanitarian concerns By: Jessica Stone

I

mages of massive flows of Syrian refugees and injured civilians combined with headlines denouncing illegal chemical weapons and attacks by Assad’s regime on Syrian citizens have grasped the attention of the U.S. public over the course of the last couple years. The public is left to wonder how the United States and the international community will respond, or fail to do so. The United States can provide aid to crises like that in Syria in two ways, either through military aid or humanitarian aid. While the two types of aid can either stand independently or the line between the two can be blurred, the United States tends to use aid in areas of public visibility and geopolitical importance to further American interests.

Humanitarian aid provides items such as food, clean water, shelter, and medical supplies to those in need around the world, while military aid is usually weapons, bullets, or military training. Yet these distinctions often overlap. For example, a GPS system or radio can be considered humanitarian aid or military aid. Many repressive regimes purposefully restrict access to food and medical supplies as a weapon against their own populations. Perversely, providing humanitarian assistance to these repressive governments can be counter to the humanitarian cause.

In 2010, the United States provided $14.5 billion in military aid to countries around the world, almost half of which went to Afghanistan. In 2011, the United States provided $29 billion in humanitarian aid, the majority of which went to African countries. It is often easy ascertain whether aid is humanitarian or military even if the military is involved in delivering humanitarian aid, such as when the U.S. military coordinated with USAID to help in relief operations following a deadly typhoon in the Philippines.

However, this is not always the case.

There is a thin line between humanitarian and military aid with the situation in Syria. This tends to be the case when a major power such as the United States delivers aid to one side of a conflict, especially when given to a rebel group. The United States has

18

given almost 1.8 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to Syria since the beginning of 2012, which includes a new $380 million aid package that Secretary of State John Kerry announced on January 15. But it is unlikely that this aid will ever become “lethal” or “military” aid, given that the rebel opposition is severely fragmented. The United States does not want to arm groups that could be linked to international terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Despite this, rumors at the end of January hinted of secret U.S. military aid to rebel groups and have halted the progress of peace talks in Geneva aimed at ending the Syrian conflict.

While there remains some humanitarian impulse in the United States, the destination and delivery of aid still depends in large part on geopolitical strategic concerns. The United States is less likely to deliver aid to areas with no geopolitical strategic interest or to disasters not visible to the American public’s eye. The government is preoccupied with domestic public image and does not want to be perceived as wasting money in non-strategic locations. In both cases, it is much easier

to give humanitarian aid than military aid, and the hurdles in both domestic government and the international community are much higher when it comes to delivering military aid. Humanitarian aid can be used by major powers as a method for expanding and securing their spheres of influence and as a lever for their interests.

USAID clearly states its purpose on its website that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s interests while improving lives in the developing world.”

U.S. humanitarian assistance in conjunction with U.N. relief programs have helped save millions of people around the world from malnutrition and disease, yet much of USAID’s work is never acknowledged by the American public. When crises such as that in Syria arise, U.S. relief programs are thrust into the limelight and their purposes come under scrutiny. In the end, U.S. humanitarian aid can be extremely beneficial to those in need even if its administration is still guided by U.S. national interests along with the humanitarian impulse.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Kim Jong-un consolidates power By: Henry Li

T

he world was shocked in December 2013 when Jang Song-taek, a senior North Korean politician and uncle-in-law of the “supreme leader” Kim Jong-un, was arrested, tried and allegedly executed along with a group of relatives and political allies. The purge, seen by analysts as the biggest upheaval in North Korean leadership since the death of Kim Jong-il, is widely interpreted as Kim’s breakout moment from the guiding transitional structure built by his father, the late Kim Jong-il. From 2012 to Jang’s death, Jang was widely considered as one of the party and military elders overseeing the young Kim’s transition.

Unlike his father who served more than twenty years as heir-apparent, Kim assumed his throne on

short notice and lacked both political and military experience. According to Xi Chen, an assistant professor of Political Science at UNC-CH, North Korea is similar to other East Asian polities in its respect for age, tradition and experience. Kim’s military legacy, namely bombing controversial territories between the two Koreas, could not compare to that of his father who demonstrated patriotism and legitimacy through the explosion of Korean Air Flight 858 and the production of numerous propaganda films. The removal of Jang Song-taek could then be interpreted as Kim’s official ascendance to supremacy by getting rid of the regent-like Jang, whose domestic influence was once believed by many as second to

HT

RIG

ILL

EH

TH

The Hill Political Review March 2014

W VID /DA

or larger than Kim. Scott Snyder at the Council on Foreign Relations interpreted the recent purge as proof of North Korea’s lack of both domestic and international political balance. As a mentor and an adroit regime insider, Jang Song-taek participated in almost all of North Korea’s diplomatic attempts in the past decade. Without Jang, Beijing’s channel to communicate with Pyongyang is increasingly limited, not to mention Pyongyang’s ties to Moscow or Washington. Even if Kim wanted to assure Beijing that nothing changed in their relationship, it is apparent that trust between the two regimes has increasingly diminished.

Since March 2013, China has continuously marched its military toward its border with North Korea, causing stoppages in trade and travel.

This is seen as a response to Pyongyang’s criticism of China’s abuse in their mining and economic rights.

In the most recent purge, North Korea’s Politburo charged Jang with “committing such acts of treachery as selling off precious resources of the country at cheap prices,” simply put, cutting overly generous deals with China. The seizure in trade could be catastrophic to the North Korean economy, which is highly dependent on Chinese aid and trade. The victim of this deteriorated relationship was neither Pyongyang nor Beijing, but the impoverished North Korean population who lived on black market trade with food assistance from China. According to a PBS documentary with footage taken directly by rural North Koreans, the shortage of supply for resources only worsened under Kim Jong-un, as fences along the once lightly guarded Chinese border now create a physical barrier for defection from the hermit kingdom.

Despite his political brutality and economic failures, Kim Jong-il maintained a healthy relationship with China throughout his nearly 20 years of rule, receiving political and material support from Beijing. Given his current track record, it is questionable whether the young and troubled Jong-un will do the same.

19

Perspectives

The Ivory Tower: Debating the Common Core Zach Williams is a sophomore majoring in political science and information science

Allie Higgins is a sophomore majoring in journalism and mass communication

Common core seeks to establish national standards for primary eduction, will this improve education outcomes in the United States?

T

he United States continues to fall behind many countries in its reading and math scores, leading many to endorse nationwide standards in the name of rigor. The Democratic Party stands firmly in favor of Common Core State Standards, the initiative to establish a national K-12 curriculum and testing benchmarks.

So do most states; 45 of 50 have adopted the standards. The GOP, in contrast, stands divided on the matter. Many prominent Republicans such as Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Mitch Daniels have touted Common Core. However, the party line has shifted in opposition to the standards. In April of 2013, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution condemning Common Core, calling it a “nationwide straitjacket on academic freedom and achievement.” I am inclined to agree with the RNC that a one-size fits all strategy is ill suited to our large country.

Common Core is not yet a federal program; states voluntarily join. Mitt Romney rightly cautioned against Common Core becoming one. Federally standardized curricula will help some students by ensuring a certain level of rigor. Fixed course material will also harm many students.

Children have varying educational needs depending on their mental makeup. Furthermore, they need a degree of space to satisfy their natural creativity and curiosity that motivates further learning. Common Core must tread a fine line between rigor and freedom if it is to be a net benefit for America’s schoolchildren. Call me a pessimist, but I cannot imagine Common Core remaining a voluntary initiative. It is only a matter of time until the Department of Education subsumes it and entices all holdouts to sign on. No Child Left Behind failed. Why would a further nationalized education system fare any better?

20

E

ducation continues to be a hot-button issue in politics as many American students remain academically behind their international peers. Local, state and national policymakers are currently seeking the most effective system for providing an equal, substantial and effective education to the youth of the country.

One system for setting national educational curriculums – the Common Core State Standards – has gained popularity amongst policymakers since its creation in 2010. The Standards, focused on setting key clear expectations for learning in the areas of mathematics and language arts from grades K-12, have been opposed by some who think this single, progressive system will lead to conformity and ambiguity. However, 45 of our 50 states have found the positive benefits of this structure outweigh any risks of a universal federal education guideline.

The Standards are the best available answer to a question that is increasingly prevalent – what is the future of education in America?

These standards provide in-depth approaches that aim to prepare students for two-year and four-year colleges by encouraging “focus” and “coherence” in lesson plans. Teachers have an effective model to work from, and students are able to grasp core concepts from the beginning that will be reinforced consistently. While the Standards cost more per student based on administration and testing, it’s hard to argue that the education system will reach effective reform without some increases in cost. All American students don’t necessarily need to be on the exact same page in every state, but the move towards a comprehensive system nationwide will ensure that more of our students receive a quality education.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

Perspectives

Round the Bend: Taper Tantrum

Brian Bartholomew is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science

T

he Federal Reserve floored interest rates in 2008. Later, it would begin buying up mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries at the furious pace of $85 billion a month. The result: record-low costs of borrowing, and record-low returns on lending.

With domestic returns driven to zero, investors plunged their money into emerging markets. The BRICS and company found themselves floating in a glut of cheap foreign capital, fueling

growth spurts that sustained the global economy even as the US and EU sputtered. Now, in light of a strengthening US recovery, the Fed’s policy stance is becoming less accommodative. The Fed began paring back its asset buys at the start of the new year. As January drew to a close, the FOMC voted to cut its monthly buys of MBS and Treasuries by another $10 billion.

With yields climbing up from the basement in the US, investors are pulling out of emerging markets and back to safer waters. The ensuing capital flight has put significant downward pressure on emerging market currencies. Of particular concern are what have been dubbed the fragile five: India, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil.

These countries relied heavily on capital inflows to balance their current accounts and racked up sizable portions of dollar-denominated debt. As the dollar rises in value against their currencies, their dollar-denominated debts are becoming more difficult to service.

Lacking the dollars to prop up their

currencies, these countries are turning to central bank rate hikes. These rate hikes threaten to stifle growth at a time when China’s cooldown is hurting commodity exports among its emerging market trading partners.

Today, emerging markets constitute nearly half of global GDP, up from little over a third 20 years ago. What happens over there increasingly matters over here. Already, weakening growth prospects in the developing world have prompted a selloff in US stock markets, with the Dow down more than 7% in 2014.

There is widespread consensus that the ongoing turmoil will not prompt greater spillover into the developed economies; however, the global economy can ill-afford another crisis. When addressing foreign concerns over US monetary policy, former Chairman Bernanke justifiably asserted that his first priority was assisting the American economy directly. Now, these second-order effects of US monetary policy are becoming first-order problems.

Two Cents: Recaping Sochi

Nancy Smith is a sophomore majoring in Arabic studies

T

he 2014 Winter Olympics were some of the most politically charged in the history of the sports that I like to call “Seventy-Eight Different Ways to Slide on Ice.” From the prohibition of LGBT propaganda to the ominous threats from Chechen jihadist group, The Black Windows, these games looked to be less of a premiere sporting event and more of a ridiculously dark reality TV show (it’s like “The Bachelor” but turned a bit more Hunger Games.

The Hill Political Review March 2014

In the midst of it all, it was difficult for the casual curling fan to understand all the mixed political messages shooting out from every media mogul with the force of a two-man luge team. We’ve taken the time to break down some of the more controversial events: 1. The Forbidden Shirtless Rainbow Russians: Last June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law that banned information on “non-traditional” unions from reaching minors.

In a nutshell, this meant that Russian children were restricted from watching Bert and Ernie on Sesame Street and Googling “Woody Allen.” As for the Olympics, this legislation meant that many gay athletes felt their rights to free speech to be severely restricted (even more so than their Nike contracts already restrict them).

2. Canine Killers: When a friendly pooch wandered into a dress rehearsal for the opening ceremonies, President Putin went full KGB and ordered a mass

extermination of all strays near the facility. Actually, there’s no other way to simplify it . . . but Putin himself deserves to be shot for this.

3. “The Black Widows” Threat: Most of us were honestly just hoping that Scarlett Johansen would make a surprise appearance in her form-fitting suit from ‘The Avengers.”

4. Shaun White’s haircut: *quiet sobbing* But perhaps the biggest controversy of Games was the complete unpreparedness of the entire city. From the hotel rooms still under construction to the lack of clean tap water, Sochi was less ready for the Winter Olympics than Lindsey Vonn. It’s safe to say that the Olympic Committee will now be putting an moratorium on hosting the Olympics in any Russian city ever again.

(We would also like to take a moment to honor the guy responsible for the failure of the Olympic rings. Northern Siberia is no fun this time of year.)

21

Perspectives

Book Review Gregory Zuckerman’s The Frackers chronicles the fracking revolution and the men behind it, but neglects potential environmental impacts By: Oliver Hamilton

D

espite the recent opening of the southern section of the Keystone XL pipeline, American energy sources appear growing stronger, as outlined in Gregory Zuckerman’s most recent book entitled The Frackers.

The book chronicles the impacts of six natural gas and oil barons who have amassed billions of dollars from utilizing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to uncover vast amounts of previously unrecoverable energy sources.

Although recently garnering widespread acknowledgment, fracking is by no means a completely new phenomenon. Domestic companies, such as Amoco, began using high-pressure water to fracture rock thousands of feet below the surface as early as 1947.

It takes an exceptional person, known as a wildcatter, to employ this expensive, not to mention highly inconsistent, process. The wildcatter is a quintessentially American persona categorized by an unquenchable thirst for wealth no matter the odds.

Zuckerman attributes the fracking revolution to George Mitchell, who began using this method in the 1950’s to extract gas from North Texas oil fields. Today, Mitchell’s crowning achievement, the Barnett Shale region, accounts for “about 6 percent of the entire nation’s energy supply in 2013.” (110) The “shale revolution”, as Zuckerman calls it, has been years in the making, but domestic firms are finally starting to see impressive results.

In fact, the United States has such a large amounts of natural gas that it

could export gas to nations, such as India and China where extraction rates make prices much more expensive. Firms have achieved these rates through technological innovation and combining fracking techniques.

Amid the flurry of business jargon and production figures, Zuckerman weaves in the personal stories of these energy titans that complement the occasional dry accounts of corporate proceedings and energy prices.

For instance, Harold Hamm was born the son of a poor Oklahoma sharecropper, but through persistence and unflinching attitude now is accountable for producing about 10 percent of the nation’s energy production.

The rest of the tycoons portrayed in the book range from ex-Enron executives to Lebanese transplants all with one related dream: to crack the code of America’s fickle energy supply. This dream is not only important to the producers, but also the future of energy consumption in the United States.

Throughout the book, Zuckerman alludes to the notion that these domestic energy sources can partially alleviate the United States’ reliance on foreign oil and that natural gas will become more common as a clean burning source of energy. Furthermore, he mentions that many view fracking as a stepping stone to more renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power.

The Frackers, however, is by no means a book for environmental advocacy. In fact, Zuckerman only glosses over the potential side effects of fracking and takes the cautious position behind the lack of information.

Amid the flurry of business jargon and production figures, Zuckerman weaves in the personal stories of these energy titans 22

In addition to offering a possible solution to America’s energy problem, the fracking industry can bring inject new wealth into parts of the country that haven’t seen economic growth in years. Due to the geologic formations that produce oil and natural gas, some of the areas where fracking takes place are in remote parts of the Midwest, such as North Dakota and Montana. In these places, the fracking revolution has taken towns by storm, increasing populations and providing people with jobs. Like most issues, however, this massive influx has many side effects, such as inflated rent prices and poor living conditions.

Relying more on the personal and business aspects of the “shale revolution,” Zuckerman fails to acknowledge the more specific processes involved in hydraulic fracking, as well as adequately acknowledge the opposing views to the issue. However, the book is well structured and very readable for those interested in the beginning of hydraulic fracking and the firms that made the revolution possible.

March 2014 The Hill Political Review

Notables and quotables “What the f*** did I do? Why did you stop me?”

- Justin Beiber arrested on drunk driving, resisting charges

“It’s so much more fun to watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl” - @HilaryClinton on Seahawks dominating Broncos in Superbowl

Editorial Cartoon By: Ngozika Nwoko

The Keystone XL pipeline project remains in political limbo, awaiting approval from the State Department. President Obama has said he will make a final decision on its fate.

The Hill Political Review March 2014

23

The Hill