US Government Whatdown?

Democrats and Republicans are fighting each other here on Capitol Hill…
Image credits: whisky21178

Confused about the Americans? Wondering what their government is playing at? Don’t fear, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson is here!

If you have ever watched The West Wing, you might remember the don’t-mess-with-me way in which President Bartlet stares down the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and denies his last-minute blindsiding demand for a budget decrease of three per cent, instead of the previously agreed one per cent. Without agreeing to it, he will be responsible, he is warned, for shutting down the federal government. “Then shut it down,” responds President Bartlet, and the lights shut off, one by one, to black. If you never have, just imagine it. Trust me, it’s cool.

Jump forward to 2013, and I like to imagine that in the current situation such a cutting response occurred in Washington, D.C as Republican and Democratic congressmen locked horns over the government budget and the federal government closed its doors, furloughing thousands of employees in the process, unpaid. But although it may be a fascinating story for politics students and interested members of the wider public as another one of those quirks in the American system of government, the reality is that it is the catalyst for a great number of problems and represents  a fundamental rupture between two sets of elected politicians.

As all governments do, the central government of the United States has to pass a budget to be able to run the country and pay its bills, including the debt and interest that it owes. This Act of Congress is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, and allows for the raising of the government debt ceiling. The Senate is supposed to debate it, but as a key part of the running of government, ultimately agree to it so the President can sign it into law.  This is where the current problem lies; between a Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, this essential bill has not yet been agreed.

For further explanation on the often-bizarre way in which the Americans do politics, allow me to return to another of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing explanations. Imagine that the government has “maxed out the national credit card,” and to rectify it they have “a quick vote to raise the limit on the credit card”. Such a vote is usually held close to the deadline so that no member of Congress will attempt to attach a controversial amendment, which would cause other congressmen to vote against it and sink the budget, therefore causing something akin to “the immediate collapse of the US economy, followed by Japan sinking into the sea, followed by a worldwide depression the likes of which no mortal can imagine, followed by week two,” as Sorkin so reassuringly puts it.

Over one of these controversial amendments is exactly how the fallout has occurred, as congressional Republicans – who are not generally fans of President Obama’s healthcare reforms – have refused and continue to refuse to pass a bill without some form of defunding or dismantling of what they believe to be overly-socialist healthcare legislation and impingements on the freedoms of American citizens. Because Democrats and Republicans could not agree, as the 30September budget deadline passed, the government closed its doors.

It is not a great spectator sport either for the millions of government employees sent home without wages. Most of 400,000 Pentagon employees – mainly workers for the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense – have now been brought back to work and promised back-pay for their unforeseen time off, but they are presently the minority.

National parks, monuments and Smithsonian museums are closed, tours of the United States Capitol building cancelled, and the Lincoln Memorial cordoned off. National food programs aiding malnourished and poor pregnant women and new mothers are closed and state-run supplies are estimated to last a week; public health services, including the national influenza vaccination program, are shut; international travellers have been warned to expect severe delays through immigration – as if the wait were not already long enough.

And the Democrats here in the White House.
Image credits: Tom Lohdan

Week one of shutdown has not yet seen quite the aforementioned dramatic tales that Sorkin foretold, but the situation is not even gradually improving. Republicans and Democrats in Congress persist in arguing between themselves and with the Democrats in the White House; it is quite something when the leaders of the free world are reduced to that which resembles a playground scrap. Whilst the “he said, she said”  continues, the deadline of the 17 October to resolve the crisis looms, leering at lawmakers, at which point the United States of America defaults on its loans.

Everything would be funny if it were not so serious. Whilst the current shutdown of services is not ideal, a US default on its debt would be worse. As the world’s biggest economy and as the beginnings of global economic upturn are starting to appear, the last thing we need is for the USA to not be able to pay its interest and debt and see us all tumble back into financial despair. The Treasury echoes such comments, and in the meantime the Labor Department will not be releasing its September report on jobs, leaving businesses guesstimating what it might have said, and how best to react.

If the inconveniences were not sufficient, every additional day that it takes the legislature to reach a fair deal is a strain on international affairs: Obama has already cancelled a trip to Asia, including an economic summit, with the White House citing it a “consequence of the House Republicans forcing a shutdown of the government”, and referring to the “difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown”. Japan and China have both spoken up urging the US to make a speedy agreement, with China’s vice-Finance Minister saying they were “naturally concerned about developments in the US fiscal cliff”.

It is a mark of how much the American right-wing despises Obamacare that they would risk a shutdown, the likes of which have not been seen for seventeen years, over it. Clinging gladly to the NHS (despite its problems), British perspective is difficult to reconcile with American concerns; it is irresponsible for a group of elected representatives – supposedly experts in the political field – to fight over a healthcare act widening access to health insurance, which was thoroughly debated and passed in 2010 and subsequently ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, resulting in a hijack of the ability of a government to actually govern. Whilst many congressional Republicans scream, Obamacare currently appears somewhat vindicated. Despite some start-up glitches, more than seven million people attempted to log into the new healthcare system online during its first three days of service.

For now, the end does not appear in sight and it is doing no one any favours, not least the politicians involved in the mess. Whilst the people they serve suffer the consequences of shutdown, they suffer the consequences of causing it as blame is apportioned to everyone to a greater or lesser extent. With the only solution being through Congress and President Obama able to use only his influence among the power games (Treasury Secretary Jack Lews has explained that, “There is no option that prevents us from being in default if we don’t have enough cash to pay our bills,”), with the tennis ball being thrown from one party’s court to the other’s and half-hearted attempts at stopgap measures to reach a deal, it looks like we are all going to have to hang on just a bit longer.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Americans Say No To Guns

As America continues the controversial debate on gun ownership, Meg Lawrence visits one of the States most affected by recent gun crime and asks local people what they think should be done.

Alana and her daughter

In a week when President Obama visited Colorado to talk about gun law and a court determined that James Holmes should be given the death penalty if found guilty of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others in an Aurora cinema, it is unsurprising that gun crime is a topic on most Americans’ minds.

Obama is calling for Congress to pass stronger gun-control laws. He visited Denver, where  new gun-control legislation was passed last month to limit magazines to 15 rounds of ammunition, to require universal background checks for all gun buyers and to charge the owner for the cost of these checks.

‘The good news is Colorado has chosen to do something about it,” the President said. ‘Look, this is a state that has suffered the tragedy of two of the worst mass shootings in our history- 14 years ago this month in Columbine, and just last year in Aurora.’

Sandy Hook Remembrance Necklace

But how do citizens of Colorado feel about the implementation of stricter gun legislation in America?

Exeposé asked a sample of people in a Colorado high street in Breckenridge whether they thought gun legislation should be changed.

A shopkeeper, who did not wish to be named, felt strongly that the gun laws had to be made stricter. She said: ‘What’s happening, in Aurora, and the babies that were killed at Sandy Hook, that broke my heart.’

The woman wore a necklace inscribed ‘short is life, but long is love.’ On the back of the necklace was the number 26. She explained that the necklace represented each person who was killed in the Sandy Hook shootings, and that all the proceeds of its sale went to the Newtown Memorial Fund. The woman added that those who were against the proposed legislation were ‘making America backwards’.

Representing the 26 victims of the Sandy Hook shootings

A common concern was that there needs to be more checks on who is able to get a gun. One Breckenridge woman, Alana, said: ‘There’s no need for assault rifles and there should be a better oversight as to who gets them.’

Bruce runs a business giving horse and cart rides to Breckenridge visitors. He said: ‘I agree with background checks. If people have nothing to hide they should have nothing to worry about.’ He added: ‘I agree with magazine restrictions but they are too difficult to regulate. We can’t govern the amount of ammo people buy.’

Jessie Jones, who worked in the local information centre, also agreed with toughening gun legislations. However, she said that she doesn’t know the best way to enforce the legislations, stating that it is a ‘complicated issue’.

Perhaps surprisingly, local Police Officer Caitlin Kontak is against the proposed legislations.

Bruce

She stated that gun legislations in the US are ‘fine’, and discredited the magazine restrictions. She said: ‘It only takes one bullet to kill someone.’

The President is aware he needs to win over the likes of Caitlin Kontak. He told his Denver audience that he wanted to hear opinions from the people who have been most affected by the mass shootings.

‘I want to listen and hear from all of you, having gone through the process here in Colorado, how you think we can best frame some of these issues,’ he said.

Jessie Jones

It seems that people in Colorado do believe that Obama’s legislations are a positive step towards a safer community now it’s up to the rest of the country to make up their mind.

 Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor

Celebrity: the new oracle of reason?

Unhealthy obsession? Picture credits: markhillary

Meg Lawrence asks whether the views of celebrities really matter in our society.

Celebrity is the new religion. But did you realise it’s also the new oracle of reason? It’s nothing new, since the golden age of cinema celebrities have used their fame and public position to voice ideas about politics and society. But in this modern age, where social media is at its height, celebrities have an unparalleled opportunity to share their opinions with the world. How thoughtful.

Don’t believe me? On Twitter, the most followed people are Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, whose followers amount to over 100M. If you have an interest in politics, you might like to know that Barack Obama takes fifth place on this list, with 26M followers. Clearly there are many who want to hear what Justin had for breakfast, but when do the opinions of celebrities become overbearing? We all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech, but when does this cross the line?

I’d hazard a guess that the answer is when they have absolutely nothing to add to intellectual debate. For example, in a recent interview surrounding his new Die Hard movie, Bruce Willis condemned any gun laws that could infringe rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Whilst Willis dismissed links between his new gun-filled movie and his protests against the proposed legislation, it is rather coincidental that he chose to promote both at the same time. Bruce Willis is an action movie star. The debate should be confined to how good an actor he is, not his views on gun legislation. The day Barack Obama appears in the latest Die Hard movie we can perhaps spare some time to listen to Willis’ political ramblings.

Dame Helen Mirren recently announced that she believed victims of date rape shouldn’t expect the issue to go to court. Mirren stated that she had been a victim ‘a couple of times,’ but believed it was a matter that should be sorted between those involved. This relates back to the dated ‘she was asking for it’ defence, which shows complete disregard for the safety and respect of women. Even politicians should think twice before sharing their bigoted views with the world.

Justin Bieber, whose followers on Twitter now amount to over 100 million. Picture credits: ShowbizReporter

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe backed Mirren’s statement, saying, ‘(a woman) should accept that she has got herself into that position. What’s she asking for? A cup of tea?’ It’s particularly frightening when a member of the party that leads our country holds such backward, harmful views. According to the Home Office, 60,000 women are raped every year, but of these cases only ten per cent are known to the police, and of those known only six per cent result in a conviction. No wonder more women don’t come forward.

Despite this, there are times, although I hate to admit it, when celebrity expression is invaluable. Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign was endorsed by celebrities such as Jay-Z, Stephen Spielberg and George Clooney, each of whom will have induced some public opinion into voting for Obama. Am I guilty of only wanting celebrity endorsement when I happen to agree with the individual’s opinions? Maybe. But I satisfy myself that my opinions aren’t to the detriment of others.

Celebrities need to remember why they’re famous. While it may be great that Hilary Duff supported Obama, who really cares? We wouldn’t ask a chef to express their view on the latest medical advancements, so why should celebrities be able to express their opinions about areas which they have no expertise in?

If a famous person can use their status to motivate others to take action, it is to be applauded. But I would hope that they would think long and hard about the power of their influence. It’s easy to lose count of the number of celebrities who complain about intrusion into their private lives – I believe the greatest travesty is how they manage to intrude into ours.

Dreams From My Father – Barack Obama

Following in the wake of his recent momentous election victory, Salonee Kakodkar reviews Barack Obama’s debut autobiography “Dreams From My Father”. Kadodkar reveals how a reading of these memoirs can reveal honest and unexpected home-truths about the man who has been granted four more years…

    Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama’s first impressively telling memoir, was published nine years before his Senate campaign and thirteen years before the Presidential elections. When republished in 2004, the autobiography soared to the #1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list. So what can we learn about the man behind the Presidential title by reading his book?

    Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father whom he never knew, Obama grew up in Hawaii. The autobiographical conversation reads about his search of his “authentic” self all the way to Kenya, in search for the world of his deceased father. Throughout the text, Obama is able to entice the readers to agree with his opinions in one moment but is able to offer the reader counterintuitive thoughts which come across as just as persuasive. The search for his identity as a black American is deeply ingrained in elements of his everyday life; often this search acts as an ironic narration and comment about us all, as individuals.

   The current President of the United States, is able to write strikingly and genuinely about himself and gives readers an honest sense of what it was like to be brought up in the 1960s and 70’s – the feeling of recognising two worlds and associating with neither – and with the mighty task of being forced to forge an identity of his own.

    His journey comes full circle in Kenya, where he meets the African side of his family faces up to the truth of his father’s life. Moving through a country plagued by heart wrenching poverty and differences, but still holding onto a purpose of fortitude and hope, Obama discovers his connection with the people residing an ocean away by accepting their shared trials and coming to terms with his divided heritage. Will the truth set you free, or will it disappoint, Obama asks? Both it seems.

 

Article written by Salonee Kakodkar
Ed. Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor

 

Why do we hate Mitt?

Picture credits VoteTimScott1

It has become pretty clear that the British public aren’t big fans of Mitt Romney, but why do we dislike him so?

It may be down to a general British centre-left stance, that is distasteful of the unashamed American right-wing tradition. Of course, the Democrats in the US are also far more right-wing than our politics is used to, but coupled with frequent bashing of the Republicans in political drama exported from the US and our own secular allergy to the religious aspect of neo-conservatives, it is easy to paint a demonic picture of Republicans in general, which tars Mr Romney too. Plus the guy is a Mormon, which is quite freaky to a nation that still views Roman Catholics as suspiciously exotic.

But Mitt Romney is not necessarily the Republican Party. Frequently presidential candidates are at odds with their party leadership thanks to the constitutional insulation of one from the other. And it may be only now that we have seen the debates that we are beginning to separate the man from the party and examine him, and finding that there are some genuine reasons why Romney should be considered for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Economics is the key battleground for the election and this is where Mr Romney is strongest. Much as we dislike him, his economic policies are not absurd, far from it. The US deficit will struggle to accommodate a further quantitive easing stimulus that could push the US out of its recession and the Democrat tax-and-spend approach may very well be the worst possible approach; increased taxes on the rich are unlikely to provide the boost that the economy needs or go anywhere even near clearing the deficit, and may possibly dry up much needed private-sector investment. Bear in mind that even the French, traditionally far more left-wing in taxation policy, are terrified of the effects of President Hollande’s new ‘combat budget’ with its massive top-tier taxes. Even if Romney’s policies do not directly stimulate the economy, then just the appearance of a highly pro-business administration in the White House may calm markets and convince people to begin investing again.

In social terms, I do disagree fundamentally with many GOP policies. And with a recession-based fearful swing to the right (almost always the electoral pattern in times of uncertainty) likely to allow Republicans to retain control of Congress, it is almost definite that a Republican Congress and a Republican President will end up passing legislation or enforcing repeals that will incense the left, and with good reason. But with the future of the world’s largest economy still far from steady, it may be necessary for the US to endure some social pain, if not backtracking, in return for strong government that can act quickly and avoid the gridlock that has halted much of President Obama’s agenda. While such a move would be unpalatable if not repulsive to many, we must bear in mind that Americans and the world would have far more damage to worry about following further collapse of the US economy than the Republican party could ever do.

Alex Carden

A roundup of the Presidential debates

Picture credits LeStudio1.com

STAYING awake until the unsociable hours of 3.30 in the morning on a weekday isn’t unheard of for many Exeter students. Doing it for the sole purpose to watch the American Presidential debates live just might be.

Critics question the actual influence of these events in swaying a mainly partisan electorate. Swing voters are often portrayed as highly intellectual political followers patiently weighing up the intricacies of policy before casting a decisive ballot. In reality they generally fit the description of ordinary people too busy working and living their lives to give a damn.  Obama hasn’t exactly lived up to wild expectations – he hasn’t saved the world (or America) and those drunken scenes of jubilation four years ago have been replaced by something rather more sobering. Still, when your alternative choice is a multi-millionaire Mormon representing the same party as George Bush it’s not surprising to see everyone isn’t all that optimistic.

Romney fought through a slew of insane, inadequate and ludicrous candidates to emerge as the President’s challenger in the political soap opera that was the Republican Primaries: Herman Cain’s sex scandal; Newt Gingrich’s US moon colony and Michelle Bachman’s ‘pray away the gay clinic’ spring to mind. Anti-abortion proposals and the rejection of both climate change and evolution tend to sit less comfortably on this more liberal side of the pond.

And while not all the candidates agreed on these issues the sheer number who did is something I find both highly amusing and slightly disturbing.

Bruised and battered from such ordeals and facing a skilful and experienced debater in President Obama, most expected Romney to come off badly in the opening battle. Polling suggested a narrow but decisive lead for Obama and the election looked almost sown up.

But Romney came out swinging against a lethargic and passive President – constantly attacking his record on job creation and the soaring levels of public debt. He shrugged off his reputation as cold hearted and robotic with a pitch full of patriotism and compassion for America and its people. He comfortably held his own in a lengthy and detailed joust over the direction of the economy and taxation; it certainly wasn’t as entertaining as the Republican Primaries but it was a whole lot more relevant. Even the most fanatic of Obama fans couldn’t claim a win here and with round one gone Romney had revived his campaign with a crucial and decisive victory over the President.

The race tightened as Obama faced serious pressure to deliver something more substantial. Round two was a bloodier and more evenly contested affair. Both frequently resorted to petty attacks, ambiguous accusations and denials for the purpose of cheap point scoring. While discussing gender equality in the work force Romney said he went to women’s groups to try and resolve the problem of a lack of female applicants and they gave him “binders full of women”.

I’m not sure he wants to associate himself too closely with the kind of people who keep such things (serial killers?), but it provided a rare moment of humour within the 90 minutes.  Most polls narrowly handed Obama the victory, although nowhere near as conclusively as Romney had won the first stand-off.

The final debate shifted the agenda from domestic to foreign policy. Encouraged by his more aggressive stance in round two, Obama shot out the traps with continuous attacks levelled at his opponent. His best was his rebuttal to Romney’s criticism of the US having fewer battleships now than in 1916: “well Governor we also have less horses and bayonets”.

In something of a turnaround from the opening night it was Romney taking up the more submissive position. In broad terms they agreed on many issues, leaving little manoeuvre room to distinguish the candidates. Obama’s record on foreign policy, however, is one regarded very differently to his domestic one.

While most in the US see him as something of a serious let down on the economy, they are far more approving of his diplomacy around the globe and handling of terrorism.

Again the majority of polls and news sources handed the victory to President Obama. Romney however has by and large held his own against his opponent and scored an impressive first round victory. The voters definitely trust him more on the economy, although he still has yet to fully convince them on other important issues. The race is on.

Dom Madar

'Women's issues' – do they really only affect women?

Picture credits Mikkel Elbech

The US election is increasingly being divided along gender lines with so-called “women’s issues” being the most hotly contested area of debate. There have been more campaign adverts on abortion and contraception than on any other issue. However, the fact that these issues – contraception, abortion, equal pay, healthcare and childcare – are being defined as “women’s issues” in the first place is indicative of politicians’ attitudes towards women’s rights. Whilst Obama has made it clear that he does not define these issues as ones only of concern to women, making the important point that contraception and access to abortion impacts dramatically upon men too, Romney approaches the topic from an entirely different viewpoint.

Indeed even ignoring Romney’s “binders of women” blunder in the second Presidential debate, his track record on women’s rights is murky. Although he’s claimed that he’s actively sought out women to employ at senior level positions whilst he was Governor of Massachusetts, the facts reveal a different picture. Whilst 42 per cent of appointments to senior level positions were to women at the start of Romney’s term, by the end of it only 25 per cent were, suggesting he’s not as equal an employer as he’d like to make out. As the election has drawn closer his views on abortion and contraception have softened, from describing himself as totally “pro-life” to his current viewpoint being pro-life, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life and health is at risk. This is nothing compared to his running mate Paul Ryan who was a co-sponsor of a bill called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, a radical bill which stated that only “victims of forcible rape would qualify for federally funded abortions”.

This softening approach is also applied to Romney’s stance on contraception with him arguing in the debate that it is not up to government to decide if a woman should use contraception or not. This seemingly contradicts his plans to remove all state funding for ‘Planned Parenthood’, which provides contraception services throughout the United States and currently receives 40 per cent of its funding from the government.

However, the amount of time spent discussing “women’s issues” in this election shows just how much both camps want their votes. Romney’s efforts to disguise his true attitudes towards women indicates the same thing. The money and time spent campaigning over these issues highlights their importance to the American population and the influence they have over a person’s vote. This is an election largely being fought over issues which should, arguably, be private. It is an election where campaigning and advertising has taken place over decisions which should only ever really be made by an individual or two people. Whatever the outcome of this election, in terms of “women’s issues” it has been a landmark one, with women’s rights to their own bodies being debated in a way they haven’t for years.

It also, perhaps, marks the dawn of a new era in American politics, where the personal has become the political in a way many thought it never would again.

Caitlin Edwards

The Latino vote

Picture credits Ricardo Carreon

Has a new silent political force entered the frame? A force powerful enough to change the outcome of the US election?

Over the last thirty years, the Latino population in the United States has almost tripled to over 23 million. By 2050, Latinos are expected to make up one third of the population. This changing demographic can therefore surely be considered a decisive factor in the upcoming US election.

It is believed that some 40 per cent of the Hispanic population are eligible to vote. This small figure is largely due to the numbers who have crossed into the US illegally. Despite this, numerous Democrat supporting Latinos, many of whom are not eligible to vote, have travelled around the states to push for a Democrat victory. Some Republican policies on immigration, such as the idea of “self-deportation”, are unsurprisingly not embraced by the immigrant population.

Romney is, however, mindful of the influence of the Hispanic vote, suggesting that one way undocumented immigrants could gain citizenship would be if they joined the military. Nonetheless despite this, Hispanic voters are more inclined to vote Democrat. Obama’s commitment to remove the threat of deportation of young undocumented immigrants is far more appealing.

Several US states, with high numbers of Hispanic voters, are considered to be critical to the Republican vote. A swing in the states of Florida, Colorado and Nevada could potentially grant Romney a majority.

In 2008 Obama narrowly beat McCain by just over 200,000 in the state of Florida. There are currently 2.1 million eligible Hispanic voters in the state of Florida, which equates to one in six of the Florida electorate. This number is enough to make a huge difference. This figure is one in eight in Colorado, whilst the number of Latino voters in Nevada far exceeds the number by which Obama won in the previous election.

But can the rising Hispanic population shape the US election? In light of the US’ political fragility and challenges it faces economically, Mitt Romney has a huge opportunity to entice those who are discontent with Obama’s handling of the economic crisis.

Perhaps the turning point in the upcoming election will depend on how many of the ever expanding Hispanic electorate will exercise their right to vote.

It is without question, a silent force, with the potential to change the direction of US politics.

Alexander Hunter