Faith, Political Parties, and Elections

This comes more out of my personal than professional academic thinking, but The Atlantic laid out a good piece for how hard it is to align faith with politics, particularly when it comes to supporting a particular political party. This is why we advocate the separation of church and state, even though in reality our political culture is shaped by religion (and vice-versa). To quote the opening paragraph

There are lots of ways to be a Catholic public leader in the United States. But the only path that’s impossible, it seems, is to advocate policies that fully follow the Church’s teachings on Jesus. Politicians of both parties have to pick and choose their theology, sticking to party lines that defy the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops’ guide to faithful citizenship. For their part, lay Catholics have largely blended into the general electorate. Far from taking positions that are distinctive to their faith, many hold views that reflect their partisan allegiances.

Content Analysis of Donald Trump Tweets

I am no fan of Donald Trump who is bad news for the Republican Party (and US politics more generally) so I hesitate to give his candidacy any more attention. He is entertaining, however, and I thought I'd post this content analysis of his tweets below as a pedagogical example of how one goes about conducting content/discourse analysis, and in particular, gauging "tone" (something I also do for my own research on Congressional statements on the North Korean regime). 

Government Shutdown and the Asia Pivot

Stymied by tea party Republican efforts to block the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) and the decision of Democrats to stand firm against further delay of the new health care law, the federal government shut-down last week. I try to stay out of politics on this blog, but my own take (along with the majority of the country) is that a group of minority Republicans have forced the Party establishment to make unreasonable demands on a policy which has legitimately passed through several hurdles in our democratic system. A Post op-ed makes this very point. Jon Stewart does it with less grace but way more humor here.

Moving beyond this domestic debacle, others have pontificated on the repercussions of the government shutdown on foreign policy. Josh Busby writes that lawmakers have weakened America’s ability to serve as a force for attraction around the world. Anne Applebaum states that the shutdown has not only damaged U.S. credibility abroad, but democracy itself. The Post argues national security faces greater risks with intelligence and security forces not operating at full capacity. And Ralph Cossa at CSIS, Pacific Forum had a tongue-in-cheek memo for Republicans and the President:

Memo to Congressional Republicans: Remember Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill"? You just turned the lights off.

Memo to President Obama: remember your "pivot" to Asia? Its credibility is fading even faster than Congressional approval ratings.

One major foreign policy casualty of the government shutdown last week was Obama's cancellation of his Asia trip - specifically his attendance at the APEC and ASEAN summit meetings in Indonesia and Brunei, as well as stops to Malaysia and the Philippines. Now most Americans will agree that the President has no business flying off to Asia given the political mess back at home. But considering the pivot to Asia as one of the most touted foreign policy initiatives of the Administration, it sends mixed signals when the President bails on a trip to the region, even if he does send Secretary of State John Kerry as a stand in. Beyond missed opportunities to reassure partners in Asia and hold discussion with leaders from China and Russia, several critics have argued that Washington's absence opens the door for China to exert greater influence in the region. An article in the Global Post goes further by contrasting Washington's uneven attention towards Asia while Beijing's strengthened diplomatic, military, and economic influence in the region.

I'm not a China alarmist by any means, and we shouldn't read too much into Obama's absence in Asia. Also, in the past few weeks, Sec Def Chuck Hagel spent an unprecedented four days in South Korea reaffirming the U.S.-ROK alliance while both he and Sec State John Kerry traveled to Tokyo for the 2+2 meetings to strengthen U.S.-Japan ties (including permission from Japan to house U.S. drones on Japanese soil). Still,  lingering concerns remain about U.S. commitment to the region from our allies. Mike Green and Matt Goodman at CSIS address this point and suggest how Washington might rectify the situation: 1) reschedule a visit to the region early next year; 2) provide greater clarity and Congressional support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade negotiations; 3) protect the U.S. defense budget from making deep cuts on Asia.

I do think the Obama Administration recognizes the long-term strategic value of engaging Asia. But there have been too many fires to put out (i.e. Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, and now the federal shutdown) which pull us away from our longer term strategic goals whether on foreign or domestic policy. We can rebound from temporary setbacks, but we shouldn't lose our eye on the ball. While we fix our gaze on China wondering whether the U.S. is in relative decline, the rest of the world will closely follow the U.S. and our increasing polarization and gridlock in Washington for signs of American decline. Why? Because the decline of great powers often begins at home, not abroad.
-----------
Update: The Washington Post published an article with the headline "China's Xi takes advantage of Obama absence." Yes, this is an opportunity for China to exercise its charm, but I wonder if the media is overplaying this tune. I'm sure Xi's trip to parts of Indonesia and Malaysia were already planned. Another article suggests that U.S. and China are "grappling for influence" in Southeast Asia. Yes, but this competition is not new. The question is whether it's a benign, competitive (for lack of a distinct adjective), or hostile form of competition.

Finally, Elina Noor argues that Obama missed a chance to promote the TPP and gave up some ground to China to elevate ties with countries such as Malaysia. However, an Obama trip would have been more symbol than substance and in the long run does not affect US-Malaysia ties. Citing Malaysia's relationship with Beijing and Washington, she writes "To view them in mutually exclusive terms would be a simplistic reduction of what in reality are rich, cross-cutting, and commonly reinforcing interests between and among all three in a messy noodle bowl of regional economic and security frameworks."

Chick-Fil-A

Chick-Fil-A has been receiving a lot of attention after President Dan Cathy's public support of traditional marriage (or anti-gay marriage stance - the framing depends on which side of the debate you're on).  It's odd that big city mayors from Boston to Chicago to Washington DC got so worked up about Chick-Fil-A. It's not as if the franchise discriminates serving gay customers. Calls for boycotting/banning the franchise triggered a response from Chick-Fil-A fans (re: the conservative base) who believed local governments and same-sex marriage supporters were infringing on Mr. Cathy's right to express his own views.

Anyway, David Meyer had two excellent posts on this debating the efficacy of boycotting Chick-Fil-A and the large turnout of Chick-Fil-A supporters in response. As Meyer notes, large corporations may support a variety of causes which we may or may not support. Does that warrant a boycott? Should supporters of traditional marriage boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos is campaigning for same-sex marriage in the state of Washington. Should progressive activists boycott Apple because they haven't pushed for improved labor standards in China?

Brad Hirschfield had an interesting comment about the whole Chick-Fil-A fiasco which he claims may actually be one of the finer moments of collective action and social movements.

Without wasting time on fights about who the “real” victims of intolerance are, we can simply point out the hysterical and instructive irony that this is where those who support Chick-fil-A and those who most oppose it are actually quite alike. In each case, a group of aggrieved people who feel their rights and dignity being infringed upon embrace the notion of political and collective social action.

Occupy Wall St

I've neglected the blog again. I was going to give my two cents worth, but more senior experts have chimed in. Sid Tarrow argues that Occupy DC is not a follow-up to the tea party. David Meyer talks about the need for an exit strategy.

Sid was one of my mentors at Cornell, and I'll have to say that I respectfully disagree with him. Yes, there are no stated policy goals. But just as the Tea Party began with ordinary people fed up with government excess, Occupy Wall St. (OWS) is about ordinary people fed up with corporate greed and growing inequities in a period of economic uncertainty. OWS is not necessarily a left version of the Tea Party, but they may have been inspired by the Tea Party's ability to mobilize and eventually put people into power. It remains to be seen whether the energies of the OWS can move towards this direction.

A Tea Party Activist and Cycles of Protest

This was the first article I read this year from the Lorian Hotel & Spa in Alexandria. It's a good example of a social movement at a crossroads between informal (i.e. popular) and institutional politics. Or in Tilly's vocabulary, the line between transgressive and contained politics. Here we see the evolution of the tea party movement: informal discussions at the gym to nascent organization to national movement. But how will the movement evolve as power holders (i.e. the state) respond and tea party activists acheive their own goals. What effect did the 2011 midterm elections have on the future direction of the Tea Party?