2016 Campaign Issues – Page 4

Shouldn’t Democrats Be Doing Better?

Wrongo watched the first half hour of the Republican Debate. If you feel you must, a transcript of the whole debate is here. The focus was supposedly on the economy. Perhaps the funniest thing was that the media password for WiFi was “stophillary”.

You will be inundated with expert opinion about what was said and who the “winners” were, but none of that is important. All you need are the Wrongologist’s observations: First, the moderators couldn’t be trusted to offer a reality-based picture of the world, any more than the candidates. Maria Bartiromo asked Jeb about unemployment, saying that almost 40% of Americans are without a job and are not even looking. Really? Media Matters checked, and her number included children, retirees, college students, and stay-at-home parents.

Yep, Republican policies will get those kids and retirees into the workforce.

Regarding the candidates:

• There was oratory, little of which sounded informed
• Most denied basic facts about economic and jobs growth
• Most candidates agreed that nobody needs a minimum wage, much less a higher minimum wage
• They agreed we need a small government, but one that still can dominate the world

When a Republican says “small government,” they really mean making the government’s legal and regulatory arm ineffective enough to allow businesses to do whatever the Hades they want until something bad happens. Then Congress can say: “who could have imagined” like the morons they are, and ask the taxpayers to clean up the mess.

You would think that the debate performance by Republicans, and their relative lack of political experience, opens up a window for Democrats in 2016. It should, but Democrats may not be in a position to take advantage. Since the Reagan era, they have deserted the world view and policies that gave them an upper hand politically. They have left the New Deal and Great Society behind, and failed to replace them with anything that anyone thinks is worth getting excited about.

They have morphed into “Republican Lite.” Republicans don’t like Democrats because they won’t agree to the GOP’s fringe ideas on guns, climate change and gutting the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.

Most of the rest of the country just doesn’t care about these new Dems. Some detest their support of abortion and gay and transgender rights. Democrats aren’t doing better because it is obvious that they have become what we used to call moderate Republicans, and why should right-of-center voters settle for the imitation flavor?

A pundit said last week that Barack Obama is only slightly to the left of Richard Nixon. Judge for yourself: Nixon instituted national price controls, ended convertibility of the dollar into gold, signed legislation that started the EPA, and endorsed the failed Equal Rights Amendment. Would Obama we know today have done all of those things?

Since 2008, Democrats have lost the electoral argument in the states. Republicans now control both houses in 31 state legislatures, and have gained 900 seats in those state legislatures on Obama’s watch.

That doesn’t sound like Democrats are following a winning strategy.

Bernie Sanders is attempting to help the Democratic Party rediscover who they once were. However, that re-discovery is not widespread, and may be occurring too late to be of service in this election cycle. If the re-awakening does not occur in this cycle, there is reason to believe that the oligarchs will have all the votes they need both in Congress and on the Supreme Court to ensure a semi-permanent reign.

So Democrats, the choice is yours: You can endorse centrist, middle-of-the-road issues, or you can represent the issues that the American people actually care about. If you go middle of the road, know that you’re putting the millennial vote in play, since they are a generation that, for the most part, remains politically independent.

This strategy may lead to Hillary taking the White House, but it will make taking back the Senate harder, and it will not reduce the Republican majority in the H0use.

Democrats need to do better.

The Republican “Free Stuff” Meme

At the last Republican presidential debate, Chris Christie (R-NJ) characterized the Democratic candidates’ debate as:

A parade of, ‘I’ll give you this for free; I’ll give you that for free’.

Senator Marco Rubio said: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

It [the first Democratic debate] was basically a…debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff: Free college education, free college education for people illegally in this country, free health care, free everything.

Jeb Bush says that black voters should back him, since his:

…message is one of hope and aspiration, not one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff…

For the record, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and unemployment have dedicated tax revenue streams. If we back out those funded benefits, all other elements of the so-called social safety net “free stuff” adds up to ~$405 billion, a fraction of the $1.2 trillion in “unfunded” Federal entitlements, and most of the rest goes to top income earners.

So, what do Republicans mean when they say “Free Stuff”? From Jared Bernstein:

There are at least three definitions of “free stuff.” The broadest would simply include all government benefits. A narrower version might apply only when people receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. A third might refer to any net gain relative to the status quo.

Under any of these definitions, the Republican claims are misleading: they attack help for people who need it, while implicitly condoning tax subsidies for the wealthy. What the Republicans want us to focus on are public education, Medicaid, and direct cash assistance to the poor, but the government provides other subsidies, some of which the GOP seems perfectly happy to keep in place.

For example, Rubio and Bush want to cut capital gains taxes below the current level (Rubio would completely abolish them). But today’s reduced cap gains rate already provides a significant benefit to people who invest in assets (i.e., the wealthy). Then there are things like regressive housing tax breaks, about 70% of which go to those in the top 20%. In addition, 68% of the tax benefits for retirement savings and 64% of subsidies for individual retirement accounts (IRAs) accrue to the top 20%.

Can it be that government benefits for poor people are “free stuff”, while benefits for the wealthy are not?

Maybe Christie, Rubio, and Bush subscribe to the second definition described above: It’s “free stuff” if you receive more in benefits than you pay in taxes, but not if you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits.

The third way to think about “free stuff” mirrors the most accepted concept of “free”. Bernstein asks:

Suppose, for example, that you opened your email today to find an unexpected $100 Amazon gift card. No matter how much money you had spent or planned to spend at Amazon, you would call this “free” money. Or imagine that you go out to dinner at a restaurant and a waiter decides to “comp” your dessert. Regardless of the overall price of your meal, you would likely consider that dessert item to be “free.”

Under this definition, “free stuff” from the government would be new benefits or reduced taxes relative to one’s current situation. Since the Christie, Rubio, and Bush tax plans all contain massive tax cuts, they would give away huge amounts of foregone tax revenue as “free stuff,” and unlike the “free stuff” proposed by the Democratic candidates – the GOP “free stuff” would go to their very wealthy patrons.

From the carried interest loophole, to drug patent law, to defense industry markups, to sweetheart deals for the oil industry, the total “free stuff” for the 1% dwarfs that available to the rest of us. Yet, the nattering nabobs of trickledown continue to target removing the scraps doled out to the 99%.

Social stability is the reason the rich should not begrudge the support given to those that are less fortunate in our society. The rich have the most to lose should the vast majority decide they have suffered enough, and we see an “off with their heads” moment.

Extra money in the hands of the 1% or the .01% just creates bidding wars for penthouse apartments that the 2% can no longer afford.

You Say You Want a Revolution

The Nation describes Bernie Sanders’s “Political Revolution”: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

When Sanders speaks of that political revolution, he is asking Americans—especially younger Americans like the crowds of Iowans in their teens and twenties who packed the Sanders bleachers in Des Moines’ Hy-Vee Hall for the Jefferson-Jackson dinner—to believe that electoral politics might actually change something. Sanders knows that won’t happen unless people who are frustrated and disengaged and disenchanted see him as a candidate who is distinctly different from the rest.

For Sanders, “Political Revolution” means a protracted, grassroots effort to fix a broken political, economic and social system. He says it will take millions of people to get involved and then stay mobilized after the election to bring about a political revolution.

That’s what Bernie Sanders’s campaign is all about.

So, if you agree that our politics is broken, shouldn’t we actually be working to fix the underlying problems? Without something that looks like a “political revolution”, fixing these problems is difficult if not highly unlikely. Consider the following:

• Capitalism as an economic engine has created unheard of levels of wealth, but since the 1980s, that wealth only accrued to those at the very top.
• Democracy is in trouble, because Capitalism needs a plutocratic system of government to operate.
• Democracy gets in Capitalism’s way because the interests of the people are not congruent with the interests of the corporations. They are often in direct competition.
• In order for corporations to keep their preferred position in this conflict of ideas, the voice of the people must be weaker than the voice of the corporations. Hence, Shelby County vs. Holder, Citizens United and the soon-to-be decided Evenwel v. Abbott.

Democrats say “vote for us because we’re not as crazy as the Republicans” (even though they actually support the same corporate interests). The Dems will also offer you a few social policy crumbs that you should enjoy on your way to becoming the big losers in our latest Gilded Age. And those crumbs will expire when Republicans control all three branches of government.

The last political revolution began when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. That revolution has continued through two Democratic and two Republican administrations, for more than 35 years.

• It resulted in higher taxes for the middle classes which paid for lower taxes on the wealthy.
• It reversed progress toward voting rights, racial equality and equal rights for women, progress that was made in the 1960s and 1970s
• It has prevented universal health insurance.
• It led to increased terrorism and endless war.

So, it’s been a wild success! And it’s still going strong under its second Democratic president.

Bernie’s “political revolution” is to attempt to turn Democrats back to being the party of the people, to give Capitalism a conscience. The theory goes, if Democrats embraced Bernie’s point of view, people will vote in large numbers. If they vote in large numbers, change will come.

This is the fight Bernie is leading.

But Bernie has no real chance at the nomination, and if he got it, there is a high probability he’d lose the general election in a blow-out. And since he’s not doing the things he needs to build a constituency in Congress, or it other down-ticket races, his populism is unlikely to translate into a movement. America has to hit rock bottom for that to happen, and we’re not there yet.

OTOH, Hillary doesn’t seem to have a plan to win the House or Senate in 2016 either.

But the fact that it is unlikely that he can win doesn’t mean that Bernie and his supporters shouldn’t fight for his policies. He has already forced Hillary to recant a few illiberal positions. And his pursuit of right-leaning white working class voters could help forge a new populist coalition down the road. Poor white folks have been clinging to the GOP for the past forty-odd years, and they are still poor, and getting poorer.

They might be willing to embrace his populist economic message even while they hold their noses when they hear his social justice views.

So, when you hear about Sanders’ political revolution, it doesn’t sound so much like a revolution as a return to policies that had been in place for much of the 20th century, those policies that began during the FDR era.

What Sanders describes is a political restoration, not a revolution.

Little that he proposes is radical from the point of view of where the country was in the 1970s.

Back before the Regan revolution began.

Anger is an Energy

We are witnessing the convergence of several trends, which may take politics as we know it and turn it on its head. First, a political trend in which both angry Republicans and angry Democrats now believe that there is zero chance that the government will do anything to improve their lives.

Second, the American Exceptionalism movement is morphing into something that says we must win, and win now. Never mind trying to figure out exactly what “winning” means. We’ve now spawned two generations of Trump wanna-be’s who have no time for losing. They must win, win, win, and they will say or do whatever it takes to win.

Third, people have sorted themselves into groups that are impervious to fact. Presenting people with the best available information doesn’t change many minds. Like a psychic immune response, they reject ideas that they consider harmful. Regardless of whether the subject is climate, vaccines or politics, they prefer and are much more susceptible to, appeals to emotion.

So we live in a time of angry rage. We can’t change most of what we see, but we sure can be pissed about it. The angry voter has been blamed for the insurgent candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and the possible emergence of a third-party presidential run in 2016.

In the midst of this shit storm, political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster of Emory University last week posted an intriguing analysis at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Blog on the role of anger in the 2012 presidential election. They conclude that voters are indeed angry. But their anger is directed mainly at the opposing party, and this anger is increasingly correlated with ideology. In other words, the most liberal and most conservative voters are also the most likely to be angry. Looking forward to 2016, they conclude: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The most important influence on the 2016 presidential election as well as the House and Senate elections will be the division of the American electorate into two warring partisan camps. In the seven decades since the end of World War II, Democrats and Republicans have never been as divided as they are today.

Earlier this year, Abramowitz and Webster released a paper cataloging the sharp increase in party-line voting in recent decades. Once upon a time, it was not uncommon for Republicans to vote Democratic and vice versa. In 2012, the authors tell us, the US saw:

The highest levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting since the American National Election Studies first began measuring party identification in 1952.

What’s the reason for the polarization? Abramowitz and Webster call it “negative partisanship”, the tendency of voters to think of their ballots not as a way to help their party but as a way to hurt the opposition. In other words, it’s not that our side is so great; it’s that the other side is so awful.

How do we know the other side is awful?’

Abramowitz and Webster say that a crucial element in negative partisanship is the assignment of negative characteristics to the other party. From 1972 to 2012, the proportion of voters who believed there are significant differences between the parties rose from 55% percent to well over 80%. We can argue over why, but, as the authors point out, these changes in perception are rational, since the parties themselves have become more ideologically rigid.

A thought experiment: Is there a party where the voter who is for abortion rights, but against same-sex marriage is comfortable? How about the voter who supports the Affordable Care Act, but is a skeptic on climate change? And if you don’t believe such complex voters exist, you are part of the evidence for the authors’ thesis about party rigidity.

All of us have met political partisans who believe that those on the other side are irredeemably stupid or evil. Yet we know that view of superiority is ultimately enforceable only at the point of a gun — just the opposite of what we expect of our democracy.

So, is anger good for our democracy? In a world of twitter and other social media, there are just way more outlets for anonymous anger. And that anger reproduces itself with every re-tweet.

And if there’s one thing anger loves, its attention.

Maybe we can learn something from what Johnny Rotten said in his book, “Anger is an Energy”, (which is a line from his song “Rise”): (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

When I was writing the Public Image Ltd song ‘Rise’, I didn’t quite realize the emotional impact that it would have on me, or anyone who’s ever heard it since. ‘Anger is an energy’ was an open statement, saying, ‘Don’t view anger negatively, don’t deny it – use it to be creative...’

Anger doesn’t necessarily equate directly to violence. Violence very rarely resolves anything. In South Africa, they eventually found a relatively peaceful way out. Using that supposedly negative energy called anger, it can take just one positive move to change things for the better.

Maybe, a third party presidential run in 2016?

The War Party Rides Again

Peter Bienart in the Atlantic:

As George W. Bush’s administration drew to an end, the brand of ambitious, expensive, Manichean, militaristic foreign policy commonly dubbed “neoconservative” seemed on the verge of collapse.

Yet, according to recent polls, GOP voters again see national security as more important than either cultural issues, or the economy. More than 75% of Republicans want American ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq, and a plurality says that stopping Iran’s nuclear program requires an immediate military strike.

So it is no surprise that GOP presidential candidates have pledged a return of US combat troops in large numbers to the Middle East. Bill Barrow of the AP took a look at the specifics of plans by some of them:

Sen. Lindsay Graham, (R-SC) on “Face the Nation”:

I don’t see anybody on our side coming up with a robust plan that truly would destroy” the Islamic State militants

Graham has called for 20,000 American troops divided between Iraq and Syria. “You can’t do this through the air.”

Donald Trump said he would commit ground troops last Sunday on “Meet the Press”. Trump said that in order to cripple ISIS, he would “take away their wealth” by reclaiming oil fields the group has commandeered. When host Chuck Todd told him that would take ground troops, Trump replied, “That’s OK.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich blasted ISIS on CNN’s “State of the Union“: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

All the religions of the world ought to stand up [and] say, ‘You blow up innocent men, women and children and you think you’re going to paradise? There’s something wrong with you. You’re nuts.’

Regarding ground troops, Kasich said he would deploy American forces only as part of an international coalition, saying: “I don’t want to go alone.”

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin wouldn’t rule out US boots on the ground in Syria.

Jeb Bush said that ISIS is spreading like a pandemic and that the US may need to send more ground troops into Iraq to defeat it. Jeb maintains that defeating ISIS in Syria will require the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad. Jeb says the way to remove al-Assad was to organize the “moderate” forces and have US troops on the ground in Syria:

Back them up as one force…And we should back that force up all the way through, not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them to form a stable, moderate government…It’s a tough, complicated diplomatic and military proposition, even more so than the current situation in Iraq. But it can be done.

His ignorance is startling. Something like 90% of rebel territory in Syria is held by the Support Front (Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate), ISIS, and a few smaller groups associated with the Army of Conquest or the Army of Islam. The Army of Conquest recognizes al-Qaeda as part of itself.

That is, there are almost no moderates for Jeb to back in the overthrow of al-Assad. So what he is actually proposing is to turn Damascus over to al-Qaeda. He blames Obama’s reduction of US troops in Iraq for the rise of Islamic State militants. He perpetuates the myth that the surge worked in Iraq.

The problem with the GOP position on more ground troops is that the US had at some points, 160,000 US troops in Iraq, and they could not stop the civil war of 2006, nor could they defeat AQ. So why would 10,000 each for Iraq and Syria be able to pull this off?

Many people have run for President promising peace. This may be the first time that multiple candidates of one party has people running for President, promising war in a time of peace.

Can anybody really take this seriously? In 2003, a Republican president took a backwards, repressive but generally stable country, and turned it into a murderous chaotic nightmare of epic proportions.

And now, the GOP thinks they can take a country which is already a murderous chaotic nightmare, and magically resolve the situation into a peaceful, prosperous United States in Iraq and the Levant? By deploying more boots on the ground?

And the unstated theme of the GOP proposals to send US ground forces back is: Once our guys are there, local populations will shift their support to us, because we’re the good guys.

We tried this. It failed.

See you on Sunday.

The GOP’s Desire to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship, or the common law concept of jus soli, is back in the news. This time, brought back by Donald Trump. One of his proposals is to stop automatically giving citizenship to most people born on US soil unless their parents are US citizens. Denying people Birthright Citizenship rights is something America hasn’t done since the days of slavery. The Republican concern is that too many illegal immigrants have a child in the US who is automatically an American citizen, and therefore, has the right to vote.

Most Republicans think, just like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), that Hispanics perpetrate a scheme to get a foothold in the country by coming here and having a child. King calls them “anchor babies”. In fact, the Republican plan would visit the sins of the parents on the children, assuming the children were born in the US.

And Trump isn’t alone. A large group of GOP candidates believe we should end Birthright Citizenship:

• Scott Walker has the same view
• Ohio Gov. John Kasich, during his run for governor in 2010 said that he supported ending Birthright Citizenship
• KY Sen. Rand Paul has pushed for a Constitutional amendment ending it
• NJ Gov. Chris Christie has said the issue needs to be re-examined
• Former PA Sen. Rick Santorum has also stated his support for altering the 14th Amendment

On Monday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tweeted:

We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Wrongo’s favorite thing is that Bobby Jindal supports ending Birthright Citizenship, even though neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born.

SC Sen. Lindsey Graham, called for a change in the Constitution, because he believes immigrants will simply “drop and leave” their kids in this country. Just like Steve King!

The GOP’s target is the 14th Amendment, which grants everyone born in the US the right of citizenship. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case declared that blacks, even the daughters and sons of freed slaves, were not US citizens. But, 11 years later, in 1868, the US ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, making Birthright Citizenship a right. The first sentence reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Court later ruled in 1898, that a child born in the US to non-citizens was a citizen under the law. So the short version of today’s GOP pitch on eliminating birthright citizenship is:

We must enforce the immigration laws by violating the Constitution.

This means that a solid chunk of the Republican presidential field says that, while they revere the Constitution, they have little issue with distorting it, ignoring it, or shredding it in order to fit their political and ideological motives.

Consider the irony: The Republican Party accomplished something hugely enlightened and important with the 14th Amendment. Here is American Civil War historian Eric Foner:

The 14th amendment and birthright citizenship rank among the great and defining accomplishments of the Republican Party, back when it was the Party of Lincoln.

Yet today’s Republican Party wants to purge their historic accomplishment from the Constitution. The problem with this Republican immigration proposal is that it’s at core explicitly nativist, racist, and xenophobic. The Republican’s clear objective is to stave off the growing political power of Latino voters in the service of one particular political party.

Luckily, Constitutional amendments are very difficult to enact, and while this attempt is likely to fail, it could potentially send Latino voting through the roof.

The current crop of Republican presidential candidates show that the Republican Party of today is in no way related to the Republican Party of Lincoln. In fact, it is barely related to the Republican Party of Eisenhower.

If you had any doubt about the current crop of Republicans being a mutant version of the party, consider Ben Carson’s viewpoint on immigration:

Why not land mines? The only piece of common ground the current Republican Party has with the Party of Lincoln or Eisenhower is its name.

In fact, that should change. In 2015, we should call it the “New Republican Party,” since it fails to honor Lincoln’s, or even Eisenhower’s memory.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – April 19, 2015

Sunday’s reason to fear for humanity:

Médecins Sans Frontières, (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders) just announced that it will launch search and rescue operations for undocumented migrants trying to reach Europe by boat from North Africa. Last year more than 3,400 people died at sea. This year, the death toll is predicted to be even higher, since more are trying to make it, and the European Union has cut funding for at-sea assistance by 80%.

The BBC reports the prevailing view in Europe is that helping save boat people will just encourage more to take the risk of a Mediterranean crossing. In fact, the EU has funded a border control operation, called Triton, with fences in some countries, and which only operates vessels close to Europe’s coast at sea. From Arjan Hehenkamp, MSF’s general director:

Europe has turned its back on people fleeing some of the worst humanitarian crises of our time…The decision to close doors and build fences means that men, women and children are forced to risk their lives and take a desperate journey across the sea.

So, Europe is saying, “Stay away, and should you try, be prepared to die”.

Some of the boat people are not prizes either: According to CNN, a boat with 105 people trying to get from Libya to Italy reported that Muslim passengers threw 12 passengers overboard because they were Christians. All 12 died. The remaining passengers said they avoided the same fate by forming a human chain and putting up a fierce fight.

Is this cavalier treatment of human life becoming the new normal? There has always been violence between clans and religions since prehistory. But when a refugee is on his/her way to (supposedly) a shot at a better life, why would a reflexive thought be; “kill the infidels”?

And why would the 28 member states of the European Union so willing to let “other” people die? Wotta world.

On to cartoons. It was a busy week for JEB!, Hillary and Rubio. And a gyrocopter dropped an info bomb about Citizens United on the Capitol:

The Park Police seized the mail the pilot was carrying, and why not? The letters were useless to Congress-critters — there was no money stuffed in the envelopes.

JEB! tries to explain checking the “Hispanic” box on his voter registration form:

Sen. Rubio explains his reasons for running:

But it looks like Hillary vs. Jeb, so everything old is new again:

Fortune Magazine says 42% of American workers make less than $15/hour. That means minimum wage workers will miss the boat:

Why Are Republicans Actively Undermining Obama’s Foreign Policy?

“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule, or ruin, in all events.” – Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Speech

This is a short meditation about the Republican Party. Last week Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor, to encourage the Israelis to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran:

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful US patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Those 22 months would be the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term as president. You can see a video of McCain’s speech here.

And so, the Republican effort to make our foreign policy a partisan mess continues.

You may have heard the phrase, “politics stops at the water’s edge”. That thought dates to 1948, when the idea of a Treaty to establish NATO was debated in Congress. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, Harry Truman was president. Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI) worked with the Truman Administration to create and pass the Vandenberg Resolution, which paved the way for the US to negotiate an agreement with our European allies.

Vandenberg was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it was he who said “politics stops at the water’s edge”. He helped the Truman administration get bi-partisan support for the Treaty.

You can connect the dots from John McCain’s love affair with Middle East war, to John Boehner’s (R-OH) love affair with Bibi, to Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) letter to Iran, undermining Obama’s negotiations on their nuclear program. In them, we see a complete repudiation of Vandenberg’s principle.

The Lincoln quote should remind us that he was speaking to his fellow Republicans in February, 1860. The issue then was slavery, and it was dividing his party along with the country. Lincoln urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to “stand by our duty, [opposing slavery] fearlessly and effectively.” But, his comment about “rule or ruin” has resonance today.

As the 2016 presidential race picks up speed, we can expect foreign policy to be the key issue for Republicans. The strategy starts from Mr. Obama’s foreign policy approval ratings holding at 37% in a January 2015 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. As we can already see today, the Republican presidential contenders will inevitably compete to appear more hawkish on foreign policy.

Republicans will run away from the economy and towards their testosterone-laden policy positions of more guns, less butter, lower taxes. The public clearly believes that Mr. Obama should have done more to manage Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and Yemen. And with so much to be unhappy about, Republicans should have little trouble making the case that it is time for a change.

The ISIS stalemate most likely is helping Republicans. A recent CNN poll finds that 58 % disapprove of his handling of the campaign against ISIS. It will play even better for Republicans if the situation worsens, and Americans grow more frustrated with setbacks, or just a lack of progress. The Republicans will try to lure Mr. Obama into sending in ground troops. If he does, there is a high likelihood of things going wrong, which will only help the Republicans in 2016. The GOP has cards to play on Iran, Syria and ISIS, but sadly, they may only be playing politics, positioning the Democrats for a failure that cannot be explained or papered over in the 2016 election.

The Vandenberg precedent is not a part of our Constitution, so there is nothing illegal about the Republicans abandoning it. It is also a good thing to review principles and historical precedents to see if they are still useful. But the precedents the GOP are so busy abandoning are the guidelines established years ago to allow our representatives to work together, despite their differences, for the good of this country.

This new, more politicized approach will hurt us all.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Tag: 2016 Campaign Issues