The Hill Volume XI, Issue IV
February 2012 Chapel Hill Political Review
Policy in an Election Year Cuts in Military Spending
Education Policy
Trade Enforcement Agencies SOPA & PIPA
Economics & Oil
From the Editor
To our readers: A presidential election year is an exciting year for political junkies, and this holds true for the staff members of our magazne. Even our internationallyfocused writers find themselves unable to resist joining in the hub bub. An upcoming American presidential election bears effect on a vast number of arenas, domestically and internationally. This issue we focus on policy in an election year. We look at policy proposals for this year and how policy is affected by incumbents running for re-election. And in this time of economic weakness, we particularly focus on budgetary concerns. We look at the proposed cuts in defense spending, we examine education policy proposals, and we discuss the promise of trade enforcement agencies. We also examine SOPA & PIPA and the push for Keystone XL.
the democratization of Burma. We also study US foreign policy in regards to South eastern Asia and American intentions to ‘contain’ China. As always, we’d like to thank you for downloading this copy of The Hill. We work hard to produce quality material every issue, and we appreciate our readership greatly. Without you, The Hill has little significance. We hope you enjoy your reading, and make sure to check back for fresh material in the future. Sarah Wentz & Siddarth Nagaraj
We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, please) and tell us what you think.
WRITERS Eric Eikenberry Brian Godfrey Ian Helfrich Sam Hobbs Alex Jones Krishna Kollu Radhika Kshatriya Siddarth Nagaraj Ismaail Qaiyim Chris Smith Avani Uppalapati Sarah Wentz
DESIGN Ian Helfrich Jenna Jordan Radhika Kshatriya Sarah Wentz PHOTOGRAPHY Sarah Wentz thehillpr@gmail.com http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill http://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com 208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210
Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national, and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events, and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues. 2 The Hill
SECTION EDITORS Sam Hobbs Alex Jones Radhika Kshatriya
BLOG EDITOR Eric Eikenberry
On the international scene, we look at a variety of issues. We provide a status report of Middle Eastern & North African countries, taking a look at the status of the Arab Spring a year later. We examine Boko Harem and the situation in Nigeria. We look at escalating tensions towards Iran, and we evaluate Send us your comments!
MANAGING EDITORS Siddarth Nagaraj Sarah Wentz
HEAD OF ART Connor Sullivan ART Daniel Kolev Connor Sullivan TREASURER Christie Blazevich FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory This magazine was produced solely for online distribution at no cost.
Contents
Volume XI, Issue IV February 2012
Contents Cover 12
Defense Spending
14
Electoral Education Policy
17
Trade Enforcement Agency
18
SOPA & PIPA
19
Keystone XL
Do cuts in spending equate to cuts in power?
Obama’s education proposals
Protectionist policies in an electoral season
The aftereffects
Fracking for electoral support
Features 5
One Year Later
6
Boko Haram
18
Obama & North Carolina
19
The Ron Paul Movement
20
Point - Counter Point
A status report on the Arab Spring
A look at conflict in Nigeria
Why Obama thinks he can win
The Libertarian appeal
Party appeal towards today’s youth
February 2012
3
Notes from The Hill
Hill-O-Meter
Who’s on top of the heap now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-andcomers and the down-and outs.
1
Rick Santorum
By Eric Eikenberry
Who the...what the...why...? [Brain explodes, replacement blogger is brought in.] I would like to remind our readers (as the recently deceased writer apparently forgot before a bit of his brains landed on my shoe) that Who’s Up and Who’s Down lists are momentary snapshots in time to which not a lot of forethought should be given; they shouldn’t be subject to in depth hindsight analysis, either. Rick Santorum had a magical upswing in the polls, winning primaries in Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota, and, given the seemingly methamphetamine-induced frenzy of the Republican base, he’ll be on the outs again next week. Newt, whom the conservative National Review recently begged retirement of, may have a second renaissance as the primaries swing back through the Deep South. Both Santorum and Gingrich have troubling electability issues (anti-contraception, moon bases, etc.), but both can reach the base in ways a certain sleek-haired counterpart cannot. The primaries will drag on through the Spring, and may last until the convention. Why? Because this isn›t about Republicans nominating a worthy presidential candidate, this is about the party’s base, weaned for years on talk radio, resentment, and various incarnations of what is now known as Tea Partyism, finally duking it out with the establishment. If you like political theater, surely you’ll learn to love a political clown show.
2 Gay Marriage Washington State passes legislation allowing same sex couples to marry. Prop 8 is struck down in California. Ho hum. The real question: when will the gay marriage activists find success inside of the coasts. (Yes, I realize Iowa allows same-sex marriage, and that the state does not, in fact, sit on either the Atlantic or Pacific. Just don›t argue, okay? It›s late and I don›t have the strength to sit down and research why the Great Corn Promised Land allows gay marriage and neighboring Illinois and Missouri don›t. So, for our purposes, Iowa has officially taken up residence just south of California, coastal elitist liberals, hard working real ‹murkins, flyover country, blah blah blah. End rant.)
3 Barack Obama
Last month, 213,000 jobs were added domestically, dropping the overall unemployment rate to 8.3%. (yeah, I know it›s not that impressive, but can’t a teacher be happy when the struggling but industrious kid pulls a C+?) Gallup has his Approval/Disapproval numbers in the positives for the first time in almost a year (and the death of a certain al-Qaeda leader). Republicans are choosing to pick a fight over...access to contraceptives? (Did I read that correctly?) Obama has wisely compromised (shifting the contraceptive mandate from employers to insurance companies), but if the Catholic bishops and their conservative backers continue to try and resurrect the culture wars over birth control, they will meet one hell of a backlash in the general. Also, Santorgrich is slowly cutting off Romney›s oxygen. For once, Obama has to be grinning, as uncontrollable variables seem to be working in his favor.
4 Euro Crisis: Greek Edition Austerity measures may calm markets, but they anger most everyone else affected. And so, the Euro crisis continues at a slow-burn as the rich and economically solvent demand more cuts from their deficit-running, global-economy endangering supplicants. Athens witnessed violent riots on its streets on February 13th, and it appears that the situation is reaching the tipping point as a hurting populace faces off against MPs willing to pass almost anything for a bailout from their euro zone brethren. Even if it avoids default in the short term, Greece has a political, social, and bureaucratic crisis which threatens to strangle the cradle of democracy within the year.
4 The Hill
Notes from The Hill
The Arab Spring: One Year Later It’s been over a year since the onset of the Arab Spring. Much has happened in the region, and it’s been difficult to keep track. Here we break down the status of all the states in the Middle East and North Africa as it stands today. Algeria: Major protests rocked the nation, but the government failed to respond to the demands and momentum faded. Unrest continues in quiet shadows of the state, but overall it’s business as usual. Bahrain: Unrest continues, and the few concessions which have been granted do not appear to have even marginally appeased protestors. Egypt: After the deposition of its former leader, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces took over rule of the state. The junta was slow in fulfilling its promises, but in January announced a partial lifting of emergency law. The junta also promised to cede power to the democractically elected government after the elections scheduled for June of this year.
constitution and implement general elections. Morocco: With the implementation of a new constitution and early parliamentary elections, the protests of Moroccans were largely addressed. However, some unrest remains and demonstrations are not unheard of. Oman: All reports indicate protests ended last May. Stability appears to have returned to the state with little to no concessions made. Qatar: Qatar managed to largely avoid the Arab Spring. Even today, Qatar remains rather peaceful and without significant unrest.
Jordan: Though muted, unrest continues even after the king dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet.
Saudi Arabia: Though unrest continues, concessions granted have lessened the extent of protests. Women were granted the right to vote and be nominated to the general assembly, and municipal elections were conducted in September.
Kuwait: Demands were met with the resignation of the prime minister and his cabinet and the dissolution of parliament. Parliamentary elections were held this month Unrest appears to remain, though muted.
Sudan: Sudan was not immune from the Arab Spring, but with the secession of South Sudan participation in the Arab Spring movement was minimal. Some unrest remains today, but does not appear distinctly liked to the Arab Spring.
Lebanon: Unrest in Lebanon has been observed, but cannot be entirely attributed to the Arab Spring. Additional concerns have arisen due to the permeability of the Syria-Lebanon border.
Syria: Bashar al-Assad remains in power, and unrest continues in Syria. The bloodshed has led to discussions of intervention by the international community, but so far little action has been taken.
Libya: The Arab Spring turned into a civil war in Libya which ultimately led to the demise of Col. Gaddafi and the creation of a new regime. Amidst continued unrest, the National Transition Council currently seeks to draft a formal
Tunisia: The origin of the Arab Spring, Tunisia was the first to oust its leader. In October, Tunisia elected a constituent assembly which is currently drafting a new constitution. General elections are expected to be held no later than
20 March 2013. United Arab Emirates: Only minor protests ever occured, and it appears that the state now continues on as it did prior to the beginning of protests. Yemen: Presidential elections in February led to the end of Saleh’s rule. The new president, al-Hadi, will oversee the drafting of a new constitution and serve only two years until parliamentary and presidetial elections are held in 2012. Sarah Wentz is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.
February 2012
5
International
Divide in Nigeria
By Brian Godfrey
Icountries n many ways, Nigeria is two in one. As Africa’s most populous nation, modern day Nigeria is a state whose territories were arbitrarily drawn by British colonial powers without consideration of native practices. Within Nigeria, there are hundreds of ethnic groups, all of whom comprise a division between the predominantly Muslim North and the Christian South. Many citizens consider themselves foremost a member of their ethnic nation. These ethno-religious differences and their underlying tensions came to a head following the country’s independence in 1960. Several coups and a brutal Civil War later, today’s Nigeria is ruled by big-man presidents and their vital stream of revenue from oil exports. In an effort to prevent future conflict and share power, the law stipulates that the presidency must rotate between Northern and Southern Nigerians. But in the last few weeks, these tensions have again emerged in sectarian violence.
President Goodluck Jonathan is a Christian Southerner and the former vice president of Nigeria. Jonathan succeeded to the presidency after Umaru Yar’Adua, a Northern Muslim, died from cardiac illness in 2010. But President Jonathan hasn’t had much of his given first name lately. The fundamentalist group Boko Haram, whose name loosely translates to ‘Western education is forbidden’, has staged bombings and raids across the country, taking the lives of several hundred people. In response, President Jonathan has declared a state of emergency, temporarily shutting down portions of the Nigerian border and deploying new
anti-terrorist measures which in- announced that it had captured clude an increased military pres- Boko Haram’s spokesman by tracking his mobile phone. His detenence. tion comes at a time of increased Established in 2002, Boko Ha- military presence in the northern ram is a jihadist organization states of Nigeria—a situation some that advocates the overthrow of claim may exacerbate the fundathe Nigerian government. They mental tensions fueling the sectarare proponents of shari’a law and ian violence. In 2009, the founder seek to promote and maintain a of Boko Haram was captured by fundamentalist Muslim society, government forces and killed while considering anyone who does not in custody, and the organization’s follow their strict interpretation of revenge attacks have been erupting Islam to be infidel. It is unclear across Nigeria ever since. The atwhether Boko Haram coordinates tacks have grown more sophisticatwith other international terrorist ed, including drive-by shootings, organizations like Al Qaeda. But strategic bombing, suicide bombwhat is evident is the impact on ing, and urban guerilla warfare. Nigeria’s stability. On Christmas Day in 2011, Boko Haram orches- The attacks surrounding Boko trated attacks across the country, Haram’s actions come at a tumulincluding church bombings. These tuous time for Nigeria as a whole. attacks prompted southern and The government’s termination ofChristian groups to retaliate with fuel subsidies has stirred national attacks on mosques and northern protests. Nigeria relies on importcommunities. When the Nigerian ed refined petrol products for domilitary killed several Boko Ha- mestic use, and higher fuel prices ram militants and captured several have had a significant impact on others, Boko Haram threatened the standard of living for the avto re-launch the same method of erage Nigerian. Ironically, some bombing used in Kano in January observers have suggested that this at places of worship and govern- nationwide protest against the government’s out-of-touch policies ment buildings. have blurred sectarian lines and Goodluck Jonathan has called for helped to unify Nigerians of all open dialogue with Boko Haram backgrounds. But as Alex Thurto put a stop to the violence and ston, author of the Sahel Blog for killings of civilians. Pointing to Politics and Religion, notes “I behistory , some claim that groups lieve violence will intensify, at least like Boko Haram can be defused in the near-term. Boko Haram has if the government agrees to give shown its capacity to carry out susthem what they really want—mon- tained attacks in the Northeast, deey, land, power, or some measure spite the heavy security presence of social autonomy. But, so far, there, and has also shown that it Boko Haram has failed to agree to can carry out periodic major atany dialogue, let alone an end to tacks elsewhere in the country.” violence. Brian Godfrey is a sophomore maOn February 1st, the government joring in political science and geography.
Within Nigeria, there are hundreds of ethnic groups, all of whom comprise a division between the predominantly Muslim North and the Christian South. 6 The Hill
A Changing Country: Burma
International Section
By Siddarth Nagaraj
A ross the globe, recent major political events have been characc
terized by the unpredicted emergence of opposition to repressive regimes in states where political liberalization once seemed unimaginable. While the revolutionary movements that swept across the Middle East have captured international attention, an equally surprising story of unexpected reform is taking place in Burma (formally known as Myanmar), where the country’s long-ruling military junta has surprised its critics and subjects by initiating reforms that could potentially signal a shift towards democratization. Long considered a pariah state by Western governments due to authorities’ human rights violations and political repression, Burma has existed under martial law for more than twenty years and has an extremely checkered history of democratic practice. The last multiparty elections were held in 1990 and Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the victorious National League for Democracy (NLD), spent most of the next two decades under house arrest before being released in 2010. She was freed after elections which were deemed fraudulent by the international community and gave power to a military-backed civilian authority in a transition that formed part of the regime’s “Roadmap to Democracy,” a reform agenda that has been criticized for its unclear trajectory and lack of accountability. Since Suu Kyi’s release, many policy changes have occurred, including the release of hundreds of political prisoners and the unprecedented legalization of nonviolent demonstrations. Opposition parties such as the NLD may now register for this year’s parliamentary elections and are expected to fare well. However, the regime has contin-
for Western Governments the reforms are both a surprise and an opportunity to counterbalance a rising superpower
ued to suppress dissent, as many of the government’s critics (particularly those who condemn the regime-sanctioned elections) still face arrest. Nonetheless, the nature and enactment of the reforms are highly significant.
While Burma’s recent progression towards liberalization is encouraging, it is also fascinating due to its apparently inexplicable occurrence. UNC political science professor Andrew Reynolds, who has worked extensively with supporters of democratic reform in Burma, notes that “[Experts predicted] this would happen only if the military split. It’s difficult to explain what is happening because there is very little information coming directly out of Burma and all the theories that are used to explain shifts like these are not in play.” Unlike other autocratic regimes (including those affected by the Arab Spring), Burma’s leaders have never had to concede to a popular protest movement, and although the state has fought members of suppressed ethnic minorities, such rebels have been unsuccessful.
of an environmentally damaging Chinese-funded hydroelectric dam opposed by many Burmese people. Subsequently, the U.S. has sought to improve relations by easing aid restrictions and restoring its ambassador, which it hopes will help promote democracy and contain Chinese influence in a country whose ties to the U.S. have always been weak (until 2012, no Secretary of State had visited Burma in 57 years). It remains unclear as to whether Burma’s current path of reform will lead to substantive changes in its government or if the new policy direction will continue, but it is certain that the country’s strategic importance will continue to increase as it follows its unique path of subtle but significant political change. Siddarth Nagaraj is a senior majoring in global studies and political science.
Doubt over the motivation for Burma’s shift toward liberalization as well as uncertainty about the future has generated a cautious but warm reaction from Western governments, for whom the reforms are both a surprise and an opportunity to counterbalance a rising superpower. Isolated from the West, Burma has long fostered close ties with China, which has eagerly exploited Burma’s ample natural resources and need for foreign investment given its severe underdevelopment. However, a recent rift has occurred following Burma’s surprise suspension February 2012
7
International
Tension Towards Iran Spikes
Inational n November 2011, the InterAtomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) released a report on Iran’s nuclear program that made the strongest case to date that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran has always insisted that its nuclear program is legitimate and for peaceful purposes only, but it has taken great pains to shield its activities in secrecy and refuses access to international inspectors. The IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, presented strong evidence that Iran has researched, developed and tested technologies whose only function is to design a nuclear weapon. The report provoked an immediate reaction from the West, which views Iran’s attempt to acquire a
By Sam Hobbs
sanctions and a unified diplomatic front to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Crucially, though, the Obama administration has been very careful not to take the military option off the table. Historically, Israel has good cause to doubt the efficacy of sanctions – they have a weak track record at best – but there are reasons to believe these sanctions could be effective. One U.S. measure penalizes foreign banks and institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank, and another sanction calls for the expulsion of Iranian banks from Swift, the global financial telecommunications network. Shahram Chubin, author of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions, put forth in an interview with The Hill that togeth-
the U.S. proposes using increasingly harsh economic sanctions and a unified diplomatic front to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program nuclear weapon as unacceptable. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly issued violent rhetoric against Israel, vowing in at least one instance to “wipe Israel off the map.” Israel and its allies in the West fear that a nuclear weapon could give Iran the ability to turn this threat into a reality. While Israel, worried that the window of opportunity to act against Iran is rapidly closing, is keen to push for a preemptive military strike, the United States is counseling patience and restraint to its smaller ally. It points out that according to our best intelligence, Iran is still at least a full year away from developing a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, a military strike could backfire and harden Iran’s resolve. Instead, the U.S. proposes using increasingly harsh economic 8 The Hill
er these sanctions “could potentially cripple Iran’s financial industry and devastate its economy.” Adding to the pressure on Iran is the European Union’s agreement to embargo Iranian oil. The EU consumes approximately 20 percent of Iran’s oil exports, meaning that the embargo will have a substantial impact on Iran’s most important industry. Critics maintain that countries in East Asia, particularly China, will eagerly replace Europe’s oil demand, but this option would only mitigate Iran’s losses. The embargo does threaten to raise oil prices in a fragile world economy, but Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries have indicated that they will increase production to steady the market. In response, Iran has struck a
defiant tone. Most alarming, Ahmadinejad has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes. This is no empty threat: Iran is capable of laying mines in the strait that could take weeks to clear. That would be a catastrophic development, but Shahram Chubin does not think it is likely since the impact would be worse for Iran than the West. American intelligence believes that Iran has not yet decided if it will develop a nuclear weapon, it is merely setting itself up to do so. For now, these diplomatic games will no doubt continue as Iran grapples with its decision. An outright conflict does not serve anyone’s interests, but the Obama administration is hoping that the combined force of economic sanctions and international isolation will force Iran to reconsider its position and at least enter into negotiations. Iran’s nuclear program is the popular policy of an unpopular president, but Iran’s leadership and public needs to ask itself: is it worth it? Sam Hobbs is a junior majoring in history.
International
Containing China?
By Brendan Cooley
IGuidance n the new U.S. Defense Strategic rolled out in January, the
Obama administration proposed a ‘pivot’ towards defense policy centered around the Asia-Pacific region. The document provides a broad look at the objectives of the Department of Defense, outlining a grand strategy for the U.S. military. And while the strategy speaks in broad terms about the “security and prosperity” of the Asia-Pacific region, in reality it has a singular target: China.
China’s influence has expanded rapidly in the past decade. Other states in the region are increasingly attracted to the economic opportunities presented by China’s rise. Yet “as China has been increasing their influence and strength over the last five years, they’ve alarmed other countries in the region,” said David Gray, a Peace, War, and Defense professor at UNC. Because of these fears, some states in the region have turned to the United States to address some of their security concerns. As the United States steadily withdraws from the Middle East, its strategic focus and tangible military power will gradually shift to the Western Pacific. Hillary Clinton wrote in a November 2011 article, “one of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.” And some of those investments have already materialized. Last November, President Obama announced that the United States would be basing 2,500 Marines in northern Australia. China predictably condemned the United States’ actions. Later in January, the Pentagon announced that the United States and the Philippines would increase joint military exercises.
Immediately, the new presence will give the United States increased influence in the dispute over the South China Sea. China claims a wide swath of the resource-rich region as its own, but its claims conflict with the claims of the smaller island and coastal states surrounding the sea. But these announcements are also indicators that despite significant cuts to the defense budget, the United States’ presence in the western Pacific will grow. The U.S. military already has large numbers of troops stationed in Japan and South Korea, and a large Air Force base in Guam. The new deployments and exercise will only increase the already-large amount of influence held by the United States in the region. The threat posed by China to the United States is similar to that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. China’s domestic political system represents an ideological threat to U.S. values, and its economic and military clout presents the possibility that it could create a China-centric trade and security bloc in the fastest-growing and most dynamic region of the world today. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s political values were the antithesis to those of the United States. It also succeeded in isolating its bloc of syndicate states from engagement with the rest of the world.
arms to China and often votes with it in the UN Security Council, the two have yet to forge a collaborative structure on par with U.S. alliance networks. North Korea is clearly a Chinese ally, but often proves to be more of a nuisance than a friend. The new U.S. strategy attempts to protect this status quo. Smaller East and Southeast Asian states are searching for security in a somewhat volatile region. By reengaging with the region, the United States is trying to become a credible alternative to China for security and economic collaboration. In doing so, the United States would limit the influence of China and protect its own influence in the region. The strong trade ties between the United States and China makes an antagonistic, Cold War-like scenario less likely. But the emerging military and economic competition points to a more adversarial future. The United States’ new strategy outlines a plan to contain China, but China will surely resist containment. Brendan Cooley is a sophomore majoring in peace, war, & defense and economics.
To China, the renewed U.S. interest in its region and increasing military presence is a sign that the United States is practicing the same strategy of containment it deployed during the Cold War. And although U.S. officials wouldn’t say so publicly, they are probably thinking along those lines, Gray said. But what China currently lacks, he said, is allies. While Russia sells February 2012
9
International
Covert Operations & Congressional Oversight
Covert operations have been an important tool of American policy ever since its earliest stages. Even before the formation of the country, General George Washington approved one of his colonels to carry out a kidnapping of the British crown prince. Indeed, in 1793, a “secret” fund for the purpose of covert operations was appropriated 12 percent of the national budget. The fund would be used for a variety of purposes, from inciting revolution in Spanish-owned Florida, to financing the Lewis and Clark expedition, to hiring gangsters to obtain intelligence. Even still, it took until after World War II for the government to formally define covert action in the National Security Act of 1947 as “an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” Today covert operations might include examining an embassy for eavesdropping devices, rescuing hostages, or conducting paramilitary operations abroad. For instance, in January 2012, a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages in cinematic fashion: the covert operation included a parachute jump, a hike to the target, and a gunfight that left nine pirates dead. The hostages, Jessica Buchanan and Paul Hagen Thisted, had been held in captivity by Somali pirates since October, creating a sense of urgency that the president determined would be resolved best by a secret US military operation. Perhaps the most famous covert operation of this decade is the killing of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011. That operation was only made possible through considerable CIA surveillance, taken se10 The Hill
By Krishna Kollu
cretly and without the knowledge or authorization of the Pakistani government. Again, the Obama administration embraced the tool of covert operation to achieve one of its most important foreign policy goals. Domestically, the Navy Seals raid of the Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was received positively. But what if the president were to engage in unpopular covert activities? Should Congress give the president a blank check? Until 1970, Congress readily supported and trusted the executive branch’s actions. The few serious complaints that did arise through the decades were resolved with Presidential intransigence and no serious Congressional response. Although congressional oversight grew with exposures in the Nixon Administration, there was still a generally amiable and certainly more accountable spirit. On November 3rd, 1986, a Lebanese paper Al-Shiraa exposed the American government’s scheme of selling weapons in Iran, leading to the exposure of the Iran-Contra affair—the selling of arms to Iran to fund Nicaraguan Contras. As a consequence of domestic outrage, intelligence oversight was radically revamped, leading to Congress assuming a greater role in stamping approval over covert operations. Today, intelligence oversight is not nearly as controversial or contested by the executive as it was for much of American history. When contacted by The Hill, CIA spokesperson Preston Golson responded: “The CIA deeply values its relationships with the Congressional Oversight Committees and takes seriously its obligation to keep them fully and currently informed of intelligence activities. The Intel Committees and their members are a crucial interface between the
American people and the Intelligence Community.” The two committees which wield the power of the purse are primarily responsible for oversight on the Intelligence Community (IC): the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Oversight Subcommittee. These committees hold adversarial (and sometimes closed) hearings, appropriate funds, examine internal structures of IC bureaucracies, and look at the necessary legal issues. Even as these committees play a significant role in Congressional Oversight, the president has authority to report only to the “Gang of Eight,” the leaders of the House and the Senate, as well as the ranking members of the Intelligence Committee, when he deems that knowledge of a covert operation of extraordinary circumstances requires limiting access even further. As the Pentagon expands covert operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, new challenges will inevitably rise in intelligence oversight. Even as some argue that Congressional oversight is weak, it is evident that it has improved from earlier years, when presidents flat-out refused to share details with the Legislative Branch. Krishna Kollu is a senior majoring in computer science and economics.
Sanctioning Scottish Sovereignty
I
International
By Siddarth Nagaraj
s the United Kingdom moving toward disunity? Many are quietly asking that question following the announcement that a referendum on Scottish independence will be held in 2014. The planned vote is the culmination of a long campaign by Scottish nationalists who have governed the region through the Scottish National Party (SNP) since winning control of the Scotland’s regional parliament in the 2007 elections. The issue at hand is one not only of political sovereignty but also national identity, and could have great consequences not just for Britain but for all of Europe. While a streak of nationalism has existed in Scotland since its incorporation into the United Kingdom more than 300 years ago, its expression in parliamentary politics is relatively recent. In referendums held in 1997, voters in Scotland and Wales voted to create separate regional assemblies with devolved powers, including the ability to levy taxes. Their establishment was intended to address complaints that regional concerns of the Welsh and Scotsmen were not properly addressed by an Anglo-centric Parliament in Westminster. The reforms marked historic changes to Britain’s political system, which has been characterized by unitary government for centuries. Scotland (along with the rest of the United Kingdom) still elects Members to the British Parliament in Westminster and is subject to the laws it passes, but the Scottish Parliament –informally named Holyrood after the Edinburgh suburb where it is located— has considerable autonomy over regional affairs. Now, the SNP-led government led by First Minister Alex Salmond is seeking further power. The referendum on independence is not legally binding, but if passed it would set in motion negotiations between Holyrood and Westminster over Scottish sovereignty. Although Britain’s national government will allow the vote to take place, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party
has long opposed the devolution of power to Scotland. To accomplish its ends, Westminster hopes to change the language of the referendum question. Currently, voters are to be simply asked if they believe Scotland should be independent, but Cameron’s government has proposed that voters also be asked if they would prefer a compromise called “devolution max” in which the Scottish parliament would have all jurisdiction over taxes and domestic affairs in the region while defense and foreign policy would be controlled by Westminster. UNC-Chapel Hill Professor Donald Searing, an eminent expert on British constitutional law and parliamentary procedure, views Westminster’s offer of devolution max as both an effort to compromise and a tactic to weaken support for independence, as the former op-
Independence could also have major global economic complications. Scotland’s economy benefits immensely from energy extraction in the North Sea, which contains oil and natural gas reserves that will generate more than $88 billion in the next six years alone. First Minister Salmond claims that an independent Scotland would have sovereignty over 90 percent of the North Sea territory where drilling takes place. The British government has responded to this claim by lobbying oil companies to join them in opposition to Scottish independence while continuing negotiations with the SNP to amend the referendum question. It is yet unclear whether Scotland will one day be an independent state, but battles over power, sovereignty and national identity are sure to continue regardless of the voters’ choice.
departure from the United Kingdom would cause considerable tension with Siddarth Nagaraj is a senior mathe rest of Britain and joring in global studies and politimake it more difficult for cal science. Scotland to establish close ties with other countries tion would “probably draw the largest plurality and secession will fail… [whereas] if the vote is only secession versus status quo, then secession may win out”. If Scotland does become independent, it would face many hurdles as a new state. Any departure from the United Kingdom would cause considerable tension with the rest of Britain and make it more difficult for Scotland to establish close ties with other countries (particularly in Europe). Spain already plans to veto an independent Scotland’s entry into the EU, as it fears Scottish independence would encourage separatism among minority groups such as the Basques and the Catalans, whom the Spanish government has also tried to placate through political devolution. February 2012
11
Cover
Do Cuts in Defense Spending Mean Cuts in Power? By Avani Uppalapati
I
n the wake of the end of the Iraqi occupation, the Pentagon unveiled a new budget plan aimed to reduce military spending. The new plan would reduce national defense spending by $487 billion in the next 10 years by scaling back the original 18 percent rate of growth. The defense budget will continue to grow, but the rate of growth will be slower.
buying more advanced and expensive equipment in fewer numbers.
still greater than the 173,000 troops employed prior to the attacks.
Some of the other major decreases in expenditure will also come from reducing personnel costs, which make up onethird of the defense budget. After the September 11th attacks, salaries of military personnel were increased, the rate of pay raises will decrease from 2015 While the spending is less than onwards. Retirees will also be originally planned, the defense required to pay more into the spending c o s t s w il l still equal even with all the cuts $2.73 trillion in the next five years, as compared to $2.59 trillion in the last five years. President Obama as- military healthcare system Triserts that even with all the cuts, care in order to sustain the proAmerica will still have a military gram. budget greater than that of the next ten nations combined. The plan will reduce 92,000 troops in the ranks of the Army The base budget will fall from and the Marines in the next five $31 billion to $25 billion in 2013 years. However, these numbers and will resume growth the year are still greater than those prior after. Secretary of Defense Leon to September 11th. The Army Panetta’s reductions halt growth will decrease to 490,000 troops, but do not lower the budget compared to 480,000 before much from current levels. The September 11th, while the Mabase budget includes costs such rines will consist of 182,000, as paying troops, buying planes, ships, and tanks.
Republicans argue that these cost-cutting measures will weaken America’s military power. Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, fears the plan “is really going to cut our capabilities in half and doesn’t handle the problems we’re facing around the world.”
David Schanzer, President Obama asserts that aProfessor political science professor at believes that the , America will riskDuke, from reduced spending still have a military budget is acceptable at this point. He argues that the spending greater than that of the reductions are not radical next ten nations combined. since planned cuts would
In an attempt to reduce those expenses, some current machinery construction and purchases have been halted. The trend in the past few years has been to reduce the total number of ships and aircraft bought in favor of 12 The Hill
make future military expenditure equal to the amount spent on defense as recently as 2007. Obama too claims that these cuts will not compromise national security, saying, “We’re strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of the critical region.”
The plan will also remove 9,000 troops from Europe and increase spending on drones and Special Forces. Schanzer believes that
General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says “Capability is more important than size. This budget does not lead to a military in decline.”
Cover
Breaking Down the Numbers $6 billion: Reduction in the baseline budget from 2012 to 2013 $53.1 billion: Increase in annual homeland security expenditures between 2001 and 2011 $235.6 billion: Augmentation in Pentagon base budget between 2001 and 2011 $472.1 billion: Total non-defense homeland security expenditures from 2001-2011 $487 billion: Projected reduction of expenses over the next ten years $524.4 billion: Federal request for defense baseline budget for FY 2013 $851 billion: Federal request for 2013 FY security spending $7.6 trillion: Expenditures on defense & homeland security since 9/11
U.S. soldiers, once stationed to deter Soviet invasion, no longer provide protection from a major threat and that troop reduction would encourage European allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense. Still, others will argue that current spending levels are necessary in order to maintain a capable military. In Rogers’ words, “It is always better to be 10 steps ahead. The whole idea of defense is to be prepared, not necessarily to use it.” Simultaneously, the military is shifting from large operations to smaller bases that allow for more agile deployment, a strategy of which Schanzer approves. “I just don’t think that large scale invasions and occupations of countries for extended periods of time with a nation building character really have proven to advance our security posture over the past decade. I don’t think the Afghanistan mission has been a success.” In line with this idea, General
Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says “Capability is more important than size. This budget does not lead to a military in decline.” Panetta too believes the reformed military will be more “agile, flexible, rapidly deployable and technologically advanced.” The issue has divided the Republican Party; while some do not support military spending cuts, some Tea Party members believe the defense budget should not be exempt from attempts to reduce national spending. Republicans already claim that Obama is weakening the military, so closing bases will be contentious. Politicians trying to keep military spending and jobs in their districts will also be unhappy with the base closings and realignments.
U.S. has done in its occupations of various countries in the past few years. Regardless of the potential benefits of the restructuring, however, the policy changes will be a contentious issue as the November election looms closer. Avani Uppalapati is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.
Despite the varied interests and consequences of the budget cuts, these new cuts require the military to be more efficient and call for an increased focus on strategy and reduce the dependence on manpower, as the February 2012
13
Cover
Education: The Uniter & The Divider
E
ducation is always a hot-button issue in electoral campaigns. Policies for primary and secondary education and the rising cost of tuition are topics no politician can afford to ignore. And in his State of the Union address in January, President Obama put universities “on notice” regarding the costs of increasing tuition. In the address, President Obama stated that universities which continue to raise tuition will face consequences. “States need to do their part by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets,” President Obama stated, “And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down…So let me put colleges and universities on notice: if you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.” It’s a big statement which immediately prompts the question: is such a promise executable? Can the president implement a punishment-reward system for universities in response to the costs of tuition? And if the president can implement such a system, will the possibility of punishment truly affect the practices of institutions? These are critical considerations, and ones the president has not yet adequately addressed. President Obama has, however, announced several concrete, executable plans. At the beginning of his campaign tour following the State of the Union Address, Obama spoke on his plans for education, and has continued to announce additional initiatives. Obama proposes to implement grant competition programs (to be awarded at both the state and individual institution levels) to reward those making efforts to keep costs low. Similarly, the administration has proposed requiring institutions to offer “shopping sheets” which would streamline comparison of financial 14 The Hill
By Sarah Wentz
An issue which both unites and divides the American population but concerns all, education policy is naturally part of the policy focus in an election year
aid packages as well information regarding potential post-graduate earnings and employment.
Obama’s focus on education will continue as campaign powers ahead towards November’s election. Emphasizing the role of education in shaping economic recovery, Obama has revealed plans for an initiative which would forge partnerships between community colleges and businesses. Entitled the “Community College to Career Fund”, the initiative bears an eight billion dollar sticker price and would allow community colleges to expand while increasing practical career preparation and training. Managed by the Departments of Labor and Education, the fund would support apprenticeships, provide on-thejob training and internships, and would provide opportunities for state and local governments to apply for grants and additional funding to develop community-based projects. Though declared “a historic investment” by President of the Association of Community College Trustees Noah Brown, the practicality of the proposal seems limited. The Community College to Career Fund closely resembles a proposal Obama made in 2009. Also focusing on community colleges, the $12 billion initiative was intended to modernize facilities, increase the quality of programs, and graduate five million more Americans by 2020. However, the initiative was never brought to fruition. This leaves one wondering the fate of the Community College to Career Fund and Obama’s other recent proposals.
Education reform never fails to be a focal point in elections. Considered an indicator of the future of the nation, a factor in employment and economic prosperity, and the foundation of society, education is a matter which cannot be ignored during campaign season. Additionally, the subject tends to be less controversial than other issues, so passing education reform legislation during an election season appeases more voters than it upsets. Similarly, during times of gridlock, such legislation is more likely to pass through Congress and the White House, benefitting Congressmen running for re-election as well as the president. An issue which both unites and divides the American population but concerns all, education policy is naturally part of the policy focus in an election year. And as the procession towards the November election continues, education reform will remain a focal point of domestic politics. Sarah Wentz is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.
New Trade Enforcement Policy Before Elections
T
Cover
By Ismaail Qaiyim
his past November, President Obama emphatically stated that “China must play by the rules” of global trade. In his January State of the Union speech the President called for the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to end unfair trade policies that hinder U.S. trade growth, especially those tactics utilized by China.
especially in the realm of alternative energies. American manufacturers are then often unable to compete with the prices of these products. The second source of tension is the perception that the Chinese government is not doing enough to prevent illegal reproduction of American copyrighted materials. The creation of the Trade
end unfair trade policies that hinder U.S. trade growth, especially those tactics utilized by China The new Trade Enforcement Unit is tasked with organizing a team of investigators and resources, conducting more import inspection to prevent counterfeit goods from coming to the U.S., and ensuring that no foreign company has a financing advantage over American manufacturers. On the eve of his February visit to China, President Obama also proposed $26 million in new funding to hire officials for the improvement of the coordination of U.S. government action against unfair trade, in addition to a 14 percent increase in funding for the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, which aims to double U.S. exports by the end of 2014. Lastly, the Obama administration has brought five cases against China to the World Trade Organization since 2009. In the case of Chinese trade policy U.S. resentment currently stems from two sources. The first is the ability of the Chinese economy to keep its currency artificially low on the world market while utilizing the U.S. dollar as its standard, leaving the Chinese currency perpetually cheaper than U.S. currency. Cheap currency in relation to the dollar has allowed China to subsidize foreign exports, which in turn floods U.S. markets with cheap products,
Enforcement Unit is aimed at addressing these two concerns. The trade policy status quo is due to a mix of historical and structural factors. Chinese trade policy is fundamentally linked to U.S. currency value. When China entered the world of economic liberalization in the eighties its currency was close to being worthless and was not a trusted medium of exchange in the global financial market. As a result China fixed the value of its currency to the U.S. dollar, adopting the U.S. dollar as its monetary standard. Chinese manufacturing has dramatically increased in the past decade. U.S. manufacturing, by contrast, has fallen behind in areas where Chinese manufacturing is booming, namely alternative energies- especially since China has created feed in tariffs for wind energy and other prices on solar energy aimed at creating strong domestic alternative energy markets.
rate would be and how it would be determined. Obviously the entire process entails a large degree of subjectivity. The ability to regulate interest rates via the Federal Reserve, U.S. monopoly control over the dollar, and the power to control levels of inflation have led some to label this whole process as protectionism intended to favor U.S. interests. With a heated Republican primary election around the corner and an election on its heels, the White House is feeling the political squeeze of Americans’ deep concerns about the economy. The creation of this new unit is not divorced from these political realities, and the trade tensions between the U.S. and China will likely resurface in the upcoming presidential campaign. Ismaail Qaiyim is a senior majoring in history and peace, war & defense.
Many of those skeptical about the claims of unfair Chinese trade policies that the U.S. government is levying emphasize the fact that American-manufactured goods are often beat out by cheaper products from countries other than China, including Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico. Also there is no consensus on what a fair exchange February 2012
15
Domestic
SOPA/PIPA: Who Governs the Legislators?
C ongressman Lamar Smith, who represents the 21st district in Texas,
is spearheading a new campaign to protect intellectual property rights. Over the past months, Smith has sponsored legislation that attempts to curtail online “file sharing” by implementing new monitoring procedures as well as increasing punishments for convicted offenders. One of his most controversial bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), aims to curtail online piracy by encouraging Internet service providers to voluntarily report and shutdown Internet access to consumers who may be involved in file sharing. Although this bill and its sister legislation, the Protect Internet IP Act (PIPA), failed to gain Congressional approval, SOPA’s legislative influence is still expanding. In a personal email to The Hill, Congressman Smith expressed his concerns in detail. “The theft of America’s intellectual property rights costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually… Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while American innovators and job creators are under attack.” Nonetheless, his legislation has faced widespread public criticism, and its failure has been hailed by individuals such as the Huffington Post’s Greg Goldberg as “an important victory for Internet users”, a phrase which refers both to those who desire tighter Internet restriction and those who stand opposed to limitation of freedom of speech. SOPA and PIPA fall perfectly in the balance between provision of Internet access and use. Research conducted at the University of San Diego shows an overwhelming majority of lobby-related funding for SOPA and PIPA stems from the entertainment industry, with additional contributions supplied by companies such as Microsoft and Google, indicating support exists among the Internet giants for the 16 The Hill
By Ian Helfrich legislation.
If corporations enthusiastically back SOPA and PIPA, and Internet giants have shown minor support, why are private groups so avidly opposed? The answer lies within the specific context of the legislation itself. Initially, both bills aimed to prevent intellectual property theft by allowing media sources to block access to websites that traditionally promote illegal online file sharing, such as thepiratebay.org and the now-defunct megaupload.com. However, the legislation would also have permitted ISP-blocking protocols, which allow Internet providers to directly bar certain users from certain sites rather than just blocking out an entire website. This alarmed Internet security officials, and consequently both SOPA and PIPA have dropped this ISP clause. Although ISP blocking was a critical concern among many computer experts, the general population was primarily concerned about the future of user-created media. Sites such as the ever-popular YouTube already screen posted videos for copyrighted material that they promptly remove. However, SOPA/ PIPA could expand this principle to encompass all websites if the tools were abused. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) this would violate our First Amendment right to free speech. Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment expert working for the EFF points out, “The language is pretty vague, but it appears all these companies must monitor their sites for anti-circumvention so they are not subject to court actions ‘enjoining’ them from continuing to provide ‘such product or service.’” Consequently, all websites with user generated content (including social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube) would have to police themselves and punish their users for transgressions, generating huge
liability costs for Internet companies. Another controversial clause encourages Internet service providers to voluntarily report users (with no judicial oversight) in exchange for possible immunity should the user be found in violation of copyright agreements. This lead many to fear a world where a family could lose Internet access because someone downloaded a picture and their local Internet service provider deemed it suspicious. The current situation surrounding Internet privacy rights can be described as a mire of red tape and potential pitfalls for abuse. Proposed legislation such as SOPA/ PIPA permits Internet service providers to block user access to the web indiscriminately. However, prevailing rules allow online piracy and theft of original content, all of which could potentially cause security breaches within the United States. Regardless of the path that Congressional leaders such as Lamar Smith take, one fact remains certain; tomorrow’s Internet freedoms will not resemble yesterday’s, but they certainly will not resemble our current vision for the future. As two roads diverge, it is the responsibility of those who use the Internet to decide between the path leads to change and that which is worn by repeated interaction. Qui regit legumlatores? Ian Helfrich is a sophomore majoring in political science. and economics.
Jobs & Oil: Is a Tradeoff Necessary?
A new technological advance in
natural gas extraction known as fracking has opened up oil reserves that were previously considered inaccessible and which might be able to supply the country’s demand for decades. A technique in which highly pressurized water, sand, and chemicals are injected into underground seams, fracking opens up cracks in shale rock, enabling trapped pockets of natural gas to flow out. Fracking has been touted by its proponents as a way to create jobs and decrease reliance on foreign oil, thereby increasing security. Environmental groups have bashed the process over its negative impact on air and water quality. They warn that it would accelerate global warming because the of process’s methane emissions and want either an outright ban or much stricter regulations. Some scientists even link fracking to earthquakes, and say it can be avoided if regulations require seismic surveys before drilling is begun. Much of the natural gas industry prefers that states regulate the process. The Obama administration’s official position is that natural gas development should be supported, but also regulated so it can be done in a safe and environmental way. Just this December, the Environmental Protection Agency published a study showing that fracking was the cause of groundwater contamination in Wyoming. Many analysts say that the administra-
Domestic
By Radhika Kshatriya
tion is keener to accept fracking because it is an election year and the practice is important in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Some states have prohibited fracking altogether. North Carolina is one such state, but state legislators are cautiously inching towards lifting the ban. Speaking to The Hill, Colleen Kendrick of the Deep River Clean Water Society in Pittsboro voiced concern for lifting the ban. She hopes that legislators will “take their time and look at what has gone on in other states. Gas prices have been reduced lately so there is not as much of an economic incentive for some of the big companies to come in here. North Carolina also does not have the pipeline infrastructure we need to get natural gas out of the area to the regional commodity market so it would cost a lot of money to build that infrastructure here.“ The White House’s emphasis on increasing natural gas production contrasts with President Obama’s veto of the contested $13 billion Keystone XL pipeline in January. The pipeline would extract and produce oil from tar sands in Alberta and link it to the Gulf of Mexico, where it could then be refined. The proposal was tacked onto the payroll tax holiday bill, granting the president 60 days to accept or reject the pipeline. The White House said that the “rushed and arbitrary deadline… prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s
impact,” and more time was needed to make sure the people weren’t put in harm’s way. The pipeline has now become part of a broader narrative that Republican candidates are trying to develop about the president, arguing that he cares more about placating his base than job creation. Despite the project’s shutdown, the energy and oil industry’s production has been rising, which has translated into the lowest prices in a decade. This has been partly due to a warm winter and a slow economy, but experts say the low prices will probably last for years. American dependence on foreign oil peaked in the Bush era at 60 percent; it is currently at 49 percent. President Obama even said “it turns out we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” In fact, it turns out that some companies are storing gas instead of selling it, or pulling back from wells. If domestic demand does not go up, the United States may well export overseas. Regardless of the success or failure of the Keystone XL project, one thing remains clear: the domestic natural gas markets are changing. Radhika Kshatriya is a junior majoring in philosophy.
Hydraulic Fracturing: a process in which fractures in rocks below the earth’s surface are opened and widened by injecting chemicals and liquids at high pressure: used especially to extract natural gas or oil.
February 2012
17
Domestic
How & Why Obama Thinks He Can Win in NC
O
ne photo of young Barry Obama depicts him goofing around at an election-night party in 1992. Grinning at the camera, he opens his jacket to reveal a Harvey Gantt for U.S. Senate t-shirt. Gantt, the mayor of Charlotte, was on track to defeat Jesse Helms until a racist campaign advertisement lit a fire under Helms’s rural base, sending hoards of unreconstructed southerners to blow North Carolina’s most admired black politician into electoral oblivion. Many commentators thought Gantt’s narrow defeat showed Southern states were too racially fraught to vote for Democrats. In 2008, a presidential candidate, now named Barack Obama, won the electoral votes of North Carolina. This year, Obama will try to win the state again and prove that some Southern states can be bastions of Democratic support. Obama’s victory in North Carolina did not rest upon what Greensboro-native Jesse Jackson called a “rainbow coalition.” White voters in North Carolina remain conservative by national standards. Although he did win some white votes, Obama benefited greatly from a countervailing demographic trend—the state’s increasingly diverse ethnic composition. Obama won 96 percent of the state’s black community, and among black women voters, he accomplished a stunning feat: unanimous supporting votes. The president also succeeded among the state’s Hispanics, winning over 80 percent of their votes. Despite continuing—yet dissipating—electoral opposition from whites, Obama won a majority in North Carolina. President Obama can expect these trends to strengthen his hand this year. North Carolina’s white voters swung against the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, but in 2012, their opposition will 18 The Hill
By Alex Jones
matter even less than in 2008. The year after election officials tallied up a majority for Republicans, the 2011 U.S. Census data delivered a major victory to Democrats. Between 2000 and 2010, the state’s African American population grew faster than its white population by a margin of 18 percent to 13 percent. Hispanics more than doubled their presence in the state. Three out of North Carolina’s four largest metropolitan areas are now “majority minority” cities. Capitalizing on these changes will be a central of part of Obama’s North Carolina strategy. On December 22nd, 2011, campaign manager Jim Messina said, “We put the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina in part because we believe so deeply in this map.” Indeed, the Obama administration has sent entreaties to pro-Democratic regions. President Obama gave speeches in Raleigh in the spring of 2009, held a pow-wow in culturally liberal Asheville in October 2011, and paid homage to the troops in Fayetteville last December. Obama has also courted the business community, celebrating high-tech job growth in Durham. Since the start of the administration, Obama’s political team has been cultivating important North Carolina jurisdictions. Simply visiting the state will not win its votes, however. As Ruy Teixiera and John Halpin wrote, the Obama campaign needs to mobilize friendly voters to overcome North Carolina’s latent conservatism. Thus, Obama has been building a robust campaign infrastructure. By November 2011, Obama for North Carolina had set up offices in four cities. Recognizing the vitality of the black vote, the campaign opened one office in plurality-black Fayetteville. Geography is destiny for Obama, and he is seizing control of his fate.
The Obama campaign still faces obstacles in North Carolina. The journalist Michael Tomasky wrote he “[doesn’t] know a single expert who thinks Obama has a great chance of winning the Tar Heel state again.” Those experts have good reason to be skeptical. Each of the president’s advantages brings a countervailing challenge. As Duke professor Pope McCorkle told The Hill, North Carolina Democrats have struggled to mobilize Hispanics, in part because it is hard to know how many are eligible to vote. Democrats will have to contest even their strongest regions, while Republicans can take many jurisdictions for granted. Worst from Obama’s perspective, conservatives are working furiously to take back the state. By contrast, North Carolina’s Democrats are dormant. Nonetheless, the Obama campaign wants Tar Heels’ votes. Obama 2012 chose North Carolina as the market for some of its first advertisements. By mobilizing minorities, focusing on urban areas, and campaigning energetically, President Obama hopes to do his old hero Harvey Gantt justice. Alex Jones is a junior majoring in history.
Domestic
The Ron Paul Movement: Will It Continue? By Chris Smith
F our years ago, Ron Paul ran for the GOP nomination mostly as a
fringe candidate with no chance of winning. He was ridiculed by political pundits and the media alike. Fox News even excluded him from a major debate days before the 2008 New Hampshire primary. Despite these obstacles, the outspoken Texas Congressman beat all other Republican candidates for fundraising during the last three months of 2007 and set a singleday record by raising over $6 million in just 24 hours. Although these fundraising numbers did not translate into primary victories, Ron Paul ignited a movement. Today, Ron Paul is still ridiculed by pundits and written off by the media; however, ignoring him has become much more difficult. A look at his vote totals in this election cycle reveals an interesting trend. In Iowa, he doubled his performance from 2008 by earning over 20 percent of the vote. In both New Hampshire and South Carolina, he nearly tripled his performance from four years ago. Paul also nearly doubled his 2008 vote in Florida despite choosing to not campaign in the state this time. After these strong performances, his rivals have even begun to praise some of Dr. Paul’s positions, probably realizing the fact that no path to victory over Obama exists without a sizeable chunk of Paul supporters. Nevertheless, concerns among Republicans remain; and the biggest problem many Republicans have
with Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. So what does Ron Paul’s candidacy mean for America? Does his support represent a growing movement within the Republican Party or is it part of a broader movement that transcends party lines? A look at the entrance/exit polls from early contests reveals some insight into these questions. Ron Paul consistently wins three demographics: independents, the 18-29 age range, and those whose income is below $50k per year. Two of those groups are particularly important. Independents now make up about 40 percent of American voters according to a Gallup poll released in January, the highest number ever recorded by Gallup. The youth vote is also extremely important; though not necessarily at this point in time when their turnout is typically significantly lower than other demographics. The political opinions of the youth vote today will be more important as they age and vote in larger numbers. Americans are more likely to favor libertarian positions, such as those taken by Dr. Paul, then ever before. For example, a Gallup poll from 1969 showed that only 12 percent of Americans supported legalizing marijuana. Today, that number is around 50 percent and when looking at only those aged 18-29, it grows to over 60 percent. While younger Americans have always been more open to legalizing
marijuana, Gallup shows that support has been climbing for all age groups since the 1970s. The same trend can be found on the issue of gay marriage. Support for samesex marriage has been growing at a slow and steady pace since the 1990s and around 60 percent of the 18-29 demographic now support it. Many Ron Paul supporters are increasingly dissatisfied with partisan politics in America. They are also not interested in divisive social issues like gay marriage or abortion. Young Americans that define themselves as conservatives usually do so with issues like limited government and balanced budgets in mind, not social issues. Social issues will become less important in the future and candidates with libertarian leanings will continue to do well. Libertarianism is a growing movement in America and today’s youth are the future of that movement. If Republicans do not give Libertarian ideas a platform, this movement might become a viable third party in American politics. Chris Smith is a senior majoring in global studies and religious studies.
Support Demographics Paul’s sector of largest support comes from the 18-34 demographic, claiming the support of 20% of the demographic. To date, Paul has not claimed the popular vote of any state primary. Mid-March statistics show 47.6 - 39.4 in a general election with Obama and Paul. But Paul supporters are quick to assert that Paul could attract independent and moderate voters and sway the election. February 2012
19
Opinion
Democratic party holds a natural appeal for today’s Point The youth.
Generation “D” By Alex Jones
A ny discussion of young voters must begin with a stark fact:
manding grip.
Republicans are losing them. In the 2006 mid-term elections, Democrats won voters aged 18-29 by a margin of 60 percent to 38 percent. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the youth vote by 66 percent to 32 percent. Even as the Lesser Depression punished young people more brutally than any other age group, young voters still chose Democratic candidates in the 2010 midterms by a margin of 55 percent to 42 percent.
The reasons for young voters’ leftward tilt begin at a fundamental level. Consumer surveys have shown that young Americans are less materialistic than older generations. As Professor of Law Daniel Kahan has found, the chief cognitive characteristic of people with “egalitarian” cultural outlooks is “ambivalence toward the profit motive.” Thus, in basic cognitive and cultural terms, young voters today are better suited for the Democratic Party and its progressive values.
In the policy sphere, too, conservatives are failing to persuade young Americans. As the Pew Research Center has found, 59 percent of young Americans support gay marriage, contrasting only 33 percent of the heavily Republican, over-65 “Silent Generation.” Young people believe “immigrants strengthen American society”--a belief of which Republicans are, to put it mildly, skeptical--by a margin of 69 percent to 27 percent. Young Americans favor “a bigger government that provides more services”--opposition to which has become the core of Republican political identity--by a margin of 56 percent to 32 percent. The youngest generation is also eager for America to pull back from its recent neo-imperialist foreign policies, which Republican leaders such as Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich are determined to expand upon. As the new generation enters politics, Democrats hold them in a com-
Conservatives, for their part, refuse to accommodate young voters’ left-of-center values. Most conservative commentary on the youth vote argues that, in effect, young voters will inevitably support the Republican agenda as they get older. The problem for Republicans is that young voters manifestly do not favor an agenda based on what Kahan calls “hierarchical” or “individualist” value sets. To hold that young people simply don’t know any better is to insult their intelligence, and, as red-state Democrats will tell you, condescension does not win votes. Stubbornly holding onto an agenda supported solely by your party’s base bears similar results. It is telling that Tea Party Republicans are resolved to “take their country back.” As the writer Matthew Yglesias has argued, Democrats’ dominance among young voters represents the completion of the liberal 1960’s social revolution.
in basic cognitive and cultural terms, young voters today are better suited for the Democratic Party and its progressive values. 20 The Hill
Some forward-looking conservatives understand Republicans must update their values as social conservatives shrink into a negligible part of the electorate. For instance, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman told The New Republic, “You cannot have a successful party based upon a very narrow band, demographically...you gotta have more young people, more people of color...many who have jettisoned the party.” It does not bode well for Republicans that the enlightened Huntsman has already quit the race for their party’s nomination. Thus, the ball is in Republicans’ court. Either they can accommodate young voters’ values and stop actively assaulting young people’s interests--one New Hampshire Tea Party leader explicitly stated he wanted to disenfranchise college students--or forfeit the youth vote to Democrats. It is up to Republicans themselves to decide whether to allow “Generation Y” to inexorably become “Generation [D].” Alex Jones is a sophomore majoring in public policy.
Opinion
The Republican party bears a true appeal for today’s youth.
Counter Point
Generation “Anti-D”
T
By Radhika Kshatriya
housands of students rushed Franklin Street the night in November of 2008 that Senator Obama became this country’s presidentelect. Fast-forward four years, and this student body’s enthusiasm has abated, to say the least. This change in attitude is reflective of a nationwide trend, and this trend might be strong enough to help the Republic candidate in his bid for the White House. To most people, it seems an undeniable fact that most Millenials are left-of-center. But dig a little deeper, and 2012 is a much different election year than 2008, when, soon after he took office, the President had a 73 percent approval rating among Millenials, which had seen a precipitous drop to 49 percent in the fall of 2011. While the rating has fluctuated, the trend is clearly negative. After four years of his presidency, many young voters feel battered and less idealistic than when the President started his term in office. Since the start of Obama’s term, the world has witnessed a crisis in the Eurozone, and its results; wideranging and painful austerity measures. Many youth are feeling that big government initiatives should be reconsidered, especially since many of Europe’s troubles are the
cause of lavish social security and pension benefits. Those under the age of 24 also face the highest unemployment of any segment of the population, with almost 1 in 5 of them out of work-- a number twice as high as the general population. And many of those who are working feel that they are saddled with monumental student loans, and that the jobs they do have fall far short of their expectations, especially after cost of an expensive education. This, on top of the social security and pension benefits that they are being made to pay has made the Millenials more pessimistic and even bitter. In times like these, reducing government initiatives, slashing the budget, and a free-market approach seem like appealing offers. Social issues seem biggest disagreement between the youth and Republican candidates, but Mitt Romney seems centrist enough on many social issues to be accepted by the youth. He started out as a pro-choicer, and at least some point in his career advocated for equality in healthcare. The Republicans do not seem to offer the same sweeping rhetoric and hope, but their pragmatic approach to economic recovery might be something the disenchanted youth have come around to.
politics. Now, his challengers can campaign on the same front. Ron Paul and his decades of principled voting make him seem exactly like the outsider that Obama had once promised he was. According to a poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics in December, President Obama had only 37 percent support among young voters, compared to Romney’s 26 percent. A large number of youth remain undecided-- demonstrating that a large number of voters are at least considering their options. Granted, this is the generation most likely to self-identify as liberal, according to a Pew center report. But the disillusionment means a lot will either stay home or switch votes, and if enough of them make the shift to not voting or not voting for Obama, the lack of youth enthusiasm might be enough to swing the vote into the republican candidate’s favor. It seems there is at least one way conservatives can harness the youth vote, by encouraging the Millenials to stay home on election day. Radhika Kshatriya is a junior majoring in philosophy.
When he was campaigning for office, Obama offered hope because he was untainted by insider
After four years of his presidency, many young
voters feel battered and less idealistic than when the President started his term. February 2012
21
To read more material from The Hill and to get information about joining our staff, please visit our website: studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill