On November 3^rd, 2010, Barack H. Obama will still reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but offices at the other end of that particular street might begin to move. Recently White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs let forth the earth shattering notion that Democrats might not control both chambers of Congress after the election. Not particularly surprising to anyone who has been paying attention…but rather poorly received by House Democrats. Indeed Speaker Pelosi (yikes!) lambasted Gibbs in a meeting with her Democratic colleagues.

No matter your current level of interest, I am here to tell you that the midterm elections should be of interest to you. What follows (hopefully) will be a persuasive argument as to why you should turn on (TV, internets, radio, twitters), how you should tune into House races, and why this all matters.

What about the Senate? For a variety of reasons (which I am happy, even eager, to discuss elsewhere) the Senate Majority Leader has no where near the control over his fellow members, legislative calendar, or policy, as the Speaker of the House does. Individual Senators and Committees, by practice and procedure, have much greater power in the upper chamber than in the lower. As a result, I would submit it is the Speaker of the House that is the second most powerful office in the land.

And it’s up for grabs. As Gibbs noted (despite his rather unsurprising ‘walking back’) the House is up for grabs. “Speaker Boehner” is a phrase which sends chills up the spines of Democrats everywhere, much as the mere utterance of the words “Speaker Pelosi” cause the average Republican to fret and avoid eating for some time.

So what should you pay attention to? There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought. The first, and easier to track, is national indicators. The state of the economy, the unemployment rate, the ‘national mood,’ and other metrics are all fair rough metrics of what is likely to happen. The alternative is to predict on a race by race basis how elections are likely to turn out and tally those predictions. (For those of you reading this to waste time and are really looking for an excuse not to get stuff done, you can read this piece or this one on forecasting).

So where to tune? The Cook Political Report is an invaluable source as a guide to which races are competitive and how they compare. His House Race charts can be found here. For those of you looking for a bit more content, and World Cup references, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is a must read. For those of your truly addicted, there are many more resources but a new one that I am quite fond of is a twitter feed @FECTweets run by Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline. The feed just broadcasts the quarterly fundraising results (2Q were due July 15) so less useful now, but good to have in the future.

There’s also the option to drop out. I’m not necessarily advocating you leave CMC for a semester to work on a campaign, though you could do worse things. You can phone bank from anywhere with Skype or a cell phone, and you can always write a check. If you do plan to go the cash route, I will not use this space to tell you who to send money to, but I will say this: go small or go home. Money you send to a House race in Idaho (Democrat/Republican) will go a lot further than dollars you spend to Illinois (Democrat/Republican).

Why does it matter that Nancy and Robert couldn’t play nice? It matters a great deal because the Speaker of the House is the second most powerful person in the nation and the White House Press Secretary is the public voice of the President.

Now you might retort ‘No, Jesse. I learned in Govt. 20 that it goes President, Vice President, Speaker of the House….’ Well, simply put, that’s just not true. The Vice Presidency of the United States of America, august title and all, is just not that important. Vice President Garner once said the Vice Presidency was “not worth a bucket of warm piss,” hardly the description of an all powerful office.

There are two principle reasons why this is true: a) the Vice President has no natural area of responsibility, except for those given to him by the President, and b) the Vice President has no vote (except in rare Senate ties) and has no natural power base or constituency to call upon.

Given our age, I am sure the comments section would fill with comments about Dick Cheney, was he not powerful? First it is worth noting that Cheney is the exception far more than the rule. Second, and more substantively, Cheney’s power within the Bush administration derived from his close, almost Chief of Staff-like relationship with the President. All politicians have close aids and allies who have their ear, and whose judgment the principal trusts. Vice President Cheney filled that role for President Bush, but unlike most advisors, his name was also on the ballot.

What is the point of this tangent? If we accept that the Vice President is not all that important, there is a vacancy in the number two slot…meet the Speaker of the House. The Speaker consolidates the powers of the House of Representatives in large measure in the Speaker’s office, has direct (if not de facto) control over what bills come to the floor, and just as importantly which bills do not. The Speaker can exercise an effective veto over legislation, and has a greater power, more than any other single member of Congress, to effect policy and political changes. This power is amplified when the Speaker is of a different party than the President as the Speaker also becomes in effect the voice of the ‘out’ party (see Gingrich, Newt).

Bottom line: November’s election matters a great deal. Control of a very powerful position is up for grabs, and this will have significant implications for the rest of President Obama’s term, for the course of the nation, and for national politics for the next few years. If that is something that interests you, there are a number of ways to get information. If you want to do more than read passively, you can get involved in a meaningful way.

Decisions are made by those who show up, will you?

OBVIOUS BIAS ALERT: The author of this post worked in the Fall of 20o9 and this summer for House Republican Leader John Boehner. Notwithstanding this fact, this article contains useful advice ensconced in a whimsical and yet powerful writing style.

The concept is pretty simple, on its face. Each spring, at least two professors at two of the Claremont Colleges teach a course on the United States Congress. Each student in the courses plays a Senator. The classes meet in the evenings for a State of the Union Address, gather as committees to draft and report out legislation, and pass at least two bills during a floor session. This year Pomona students, representing the Democrats, faced off against Claremont McKenna Republicans in a test that made the healthcare struggle feel brief.

These colors always run

To be fair, the simulation has never been easy to execute. Just imagine putting a couple dozen type-A personalities, who are politically obsessed, in close quarters for four days. Havoc usually ensues. Just last year, ‘President Obama’ was locked in a bathroom and Harry Reid was ousted as majority leader. Another year, when the students were particularly dull, the faculty members (or ‘Simulation Gods’) decreed that the North Koreans had nuked an oil pipeline in Alaska.

This year’s simulation stayed true to Senate-style. The Senate was supposed to meet at 6:30 on Thursday to begin its floor session, and only two and a half hours later… nothing. At this point, the Simulation Gods announced they were “grumpy” and went to encourage the minority party, whose meeting had delayed the simulation, to venture forth and begin. Ultimately, the Simulation Gods managed to cajole the Senate into action through the use of their “capricious” power (their word, not mine), and by doling out proxy votes.

Things got interesting around 9:15, when Tea Party protesters stormed the Senate floor chanting “Kill the bill!” and “Down with problems!” Rowdy screams and chants of “USA!” and “The South will rise again” could be heard from a crowd gathered outside the chamber throughout the night.

Despite the commotion, the ‘Senate’ managed to pass numerous bills throughout the course of the evening, including landmark legislation such as “Subsidies for America’s Future,” which Senator Franken was overheard complaining about as “something we’ve never seen or heard of before.” Other measures considered included funds for clean coal and nuclear technology. An unusually grumpy Senator Harkin was overheard saying “I just don’t trust them,” presumably in reference to Republicans. So, much like the actual Senate, personal animosity played a role in the functioning— or lack thereof— of Claremont’s Senate.

Simulations are notoriously difficult to run well. Professor David Menefee-Libey (Congress God from Pomona) said, “I didn’t believe in this when I came here in 1989.” Past simulations he had participated in were “hokey,” but this simulation has a lot of merit. “I have alums who come back 20 years later” because of this simulation. It is “one of the most powerful educational experiences.”

Despite the quirky nature inherent in any simulation, the event provides a unique learning experience far closer to reality than most people would like to admit. In 1996 the ‘Senate’ passed a welfare reform bill which resembled the bill that President Clinton had vetoed the year before. During the debrief, Professor Menefee-Libey told his class that it was unrealistic to think the Senate would pass— or that the president sign— a bill which so closely resembled something he had previously opposed. Four months after the Claremont Senate passed welfare reform, the United States Senate followed suit, passing a bill that would become one of President Clinton’s signature accomplishments.

Claremont’s Congress is filled with the same indulgent pettiness, personal vendettas, and unavoidable distrust you might find roaming those marble halls in Washington, D.C. But this is not an extended soap opera— though it may seem like that at times. On what other college campus will you overhear students arguing passionately about the interpretation of Riddick’s Rules of Senate Procedure?

Assigning grades for such an endeavor, where secret deals are the norm and there is so much information to track, is a difficult task. At Pomona, students “don’t really get credit” for the simulation, according to Professor Menefee-Libey. But CMC’s Professor Pitney uses a three-pronged approach. First, Pitney “triangulates” information through observation and student leaks. He then assigns a paper on their simulation experiences, and on lessons learned. Finally, he uses anonymous peer evaluations, asking students to determine who performed the best.

Studying Congress, as if it did not have those features, defeats the point. Congress is not an abstraction, or a textbook creation for a comparative government class. It is a kingdom with 535 chiefs–and no, wiseass, D.C. and Guam don’t count. You cannot begin to understand Congress, just as you would be lost during the simulation, without learning the personalities and the politics of the players involved.

Indeed, as time has passed, life has begun to imitate art. Adam Kokesh CMC ’07 and Craig McPherson CMC ’06 are both alums of the simulation, playing Ted Kennedy and Pat Roberts respectively. Both are currently running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress with Professor Pitney remains the best class I have taken in my three years at CMC. The class is what it is in large part because of the simulation. So while you and your friends may well be worried about the State of TNC, consider for a moment the State of the Nation (both real and imagined). Consider the impact that practical learning can have on your college experience. Consider taking Congress.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, or DADT, was passed in 1993 by a Congress that had solid Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives, 258 Democrats as opposed to 176 Republicans, and the Senate, 57 Democrats opposite 43 Republicans. Bill Clinton had just won his first term as president. This was not an extreme right-wing government that put DADT in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. The Congress expresses in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that military service is not a right and that,

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

The last part is crucial in understanding why DADT was enacted. Military society is not civilian society. The rules that govern it must be different because the military is expected to do things the public isn’t, like fight a war. I went to my friend, teammate, and United States Marine, Eric Yingling, to inquire more into the strictness of military life. He stated:

“During my time on the east coast, we were required to go out shirts tucked in, belt, and slacks/nicer jeans at all times not in uniform. You couldn’t have ear piercings, tattoos visible above the neck or other ‘individualistic’ qualities. This is all for unit cohesion and stomping out the ‘individual.’ The military doesn’t want individuals nor does it really care about what you think– it wants people to get the job done. They have their rules, and everyone– gay, straight, or other– needs to abide by them and conform. There is no preferential treatment because you are straight or gay. There are even rules to how straight couples should act in public, and especially while in uniform. They are there for a reason, and it isn’t to ban gays. They are allowed to join, and serve (for the same selfless reasons anyone would want to serve, right?) but they don’t get a special marking on their dog tags next to blood type that says ‘gay’ or something. Just as I don’t get one that says ‘straight.’”

Eric was also kind enough to point out that the military enters into the sexual lives of all its personal, he pointed out a passage from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, that prohibits a certain type of sex.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The military culture is much different then mainstream society. In civil society, a person is not allowed to be restricted from work because they are disabled or have a defect, but in the military they must carefully chose their recruits. I know from personal experience that the United States Military is extremely selective in accepting recruits. I applied to West Point out of high school, earned a Congressional recommendation, but was denied by the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board, or DoDMERB, because I had corrective heart surgery. Later, I again tried to serve by earning a full scholarship from Army ROTC, but was again prevented from serving my country by DoDMERB due to a problem I had been born with. Eric had a similar story where the U.S. Army was delaying in allowing him to join because when he was twelve his doctor prescribed him a temporary inhaler (2 weeks use) to deal with bronchitis. Despite never having “any breathing issues or anything at all related in the 6 years following,” the U.S. Army was hesitant to recruit.

One must understand that DADT is not a ban of homosexuals serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels. If the military was not concerned with the morale and cohesion of its soldiers, wouldn’t that just be a little, well, queer?

The CMC Celeb section features interesting personal stories and there is no better celeb to start with than Isaac Goldberg. Isaac, a senior from Scarsdale, NY, is a passionate Democrat. He is majoring in Government with a sequence in Leadership. Isaac spends his free time playing on the CMC Regulators baseball team. He is the President of the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges and has political experience that would make most CMCers drool. Isaac has worked a number of internships. Notably, he has worked for two Congressional campaigns and on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C. Most impressive of all, Isaac was offered the unique opportunity to work on Barack Obama’s 2008 bid for the White House.

To get to know Isaac better, the Forum asked him a set of six questions that can be found in all future CMC Celeb articles:

“The Six”

1. What are the top 5 most played songs on your iTunes?

1. Thunder Road, Bruce Springsteen
2. Cotton Fields, Credence Clearwater Revival
3. The Weight, The Band
4. You Don’t Know How it Feels, Tom Petty
5. Perfect Gentleman, Wyclef Jean

In light of the complexity and weight of the situation, it is reasonable for Obama to take time to carefully consider America’s options.  Although McChrystal’s report is rife with language declaring that we must act decisively and act now, it is crucial that Obama avoid an “LBJ moment” and rush headlong into Afghanistan without carefully weighing the consequences.  For this reason, accusations of “dithering” by detractors like Dick Cheney is nothing more than sound-byte flak.  Mind you, Cheney’s expertise in the careful planning and successful execution of war has been called into question by recent history.

What is troubling about the deliberation process is that it seems to be a major reversal of Obama’s policy on a number of levels.  Essentially, McChrystal is making the case for a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy which would require a substantial increase in the number of US and allied troops in Afghanistan.  McChrystal’s recommendations are specific, down to the minimum number of additional troops required for success, and in keeping with the administration’s assertion that securing Afghanistan is a “vital security interest” of the US.  Moreover, McChrystal was handpicked by Obama after the President made it clear that he wanted a counterinsurgency strategy like the one McChrystal is proposing, rather than a counterterrorist strategy favored by people such as Vice-President Biden.  Therefore, it seems that Obama has been committed to the type of plan outlined by McChrystal from the very beginning.  In light of the protracted deliberation now occurring in the White House, however, something has changed.  Most observers do not believe that Obama will grant McChrystal the number of troops the General says is necessary for victory.

Why is Obama hesitating when his handpicked military expert has clearly outlined the road to victory?  Perhaps, faced with the actual numbers in the general’s report, Obama has decided to rethink the cost-benefit balance of this war.  A counterinsurgency campaign, which is usually measured not in months but in years or even decades, will be an extremely costly addition to what has already been a long and deadly war.  In light of the billions of dollars, thousands of men, and many years of war required to achieve what he originally declared necessary, Obama may now be more tempted by the alternative of occasional predator drone strikes against al-Qaeda operatives.

As an Obama supporter who  largely agrees with Obama’s Afghan policy, I would find it hard to reconcile such a shift from counterinsurgency to counterterrorist methods. All along, winning in Afghanistan has been defined as the creation of a stable government that is able to suppress or expel the terrorists operating in its territory.  A counterinsurgency campaign could achieve this goal.  A counterterrorist campaign will not only fail to achieve this goal, but does not conceive of these conditions as goals in the first place.   Which of the two approaches is more likely to succeed in Afghanistan?  In the administration’s conception, at least up to now, the only possible answer is counterinsurgency.  For this reason, a full shift from “COIN” to “CT” operations is highly unlikely; it would simply be too inconsistent with the administration’s idea of US security interests in the region.  Consequently,  stuck with a winning strategy that is simply too costly to enact, Obama will probably move forward with half-measures.  The results could be disastrous.

Most observers agree that Obama will characteristically  find a “middle way,” providing some but not all of the troops McChrystal has requested.  This is a terrifying prospect.  If Afghanistan is truly the must-win that Obama has characterized it, then under-resourcing the war will be a sure fire way to waste American blood and treasure in a losing effort that will ultimately make us less secure and result in yet another loss in international prestige.  If the costs of McChrystal’s plan are too high, we must think of another acceptable way to achieve our ultimate end, which, it is sometimes hard to remember, is the destruction of al-Qaeda.  If that means switching to counterterrorist operations so be it.  But Obama absolutely should not send an arbitrary number of soldiers to be fodder in a war that, McChrystal has already told us, we will lose– we need to send the troops the general has requested, or none at all.  To be fair, it must be mentioned that military thinkers are hard at work on a “middle way” that might be viable.  Among them, John Nagl, one of the minds behind the military’s successful shift in focus to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, has suggested a “triage” approach that may be promising.  This plan, however, largely reads as a “counterinsurgency redux” option and does not offer fundamentally different plans for Afghanistan other than asserting that an operation with fewer troops could theoretically be successful.

Henry Kissinger, rather ironically, once said, “That which must be done ultimately should be done immediately.”   At the end of the day, Obama needs to decide not what number of troops to send or how much funding the war requires, but whether or not winning in Afghanistan, as it is currently conceived, is truly essential to US security.  If it is, then let us hope that Obama acts decisively on McChrystal’s recommendations and commits fully to a winning effort.  If not, let’s get the hell out.

[2] ibid. Sec 1-4

It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies.   This job is harder than people think.  Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool.  That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.

An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time.  We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.”  (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved.  I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)

Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.  How else do you explain articles like this?  Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up?  For some reason these people want to relive that.  They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse.  It’s immature and childlike.

What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:

“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn

With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle.  You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and   wrote this.  No one cares about how you and Andrew work together.  You’re supposed to act professionally.  The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI.  This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.

I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:

“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”

A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds.  I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded.  Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.

Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging.  You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

P.S. Refreshments (pizza?) will be served.

(Photo Credit: LA Times)

The Claremont Political Union was created as a confluence of the Claremont Democrats and Claremont Republicans clubs, and CMC’s two partisan newspapers, the Claremont Port Side, and the Claremont Independent. According to President of the Claremont Democrats, Elaine Maloney (SC ’08), “People might be involved in politics, but might not be allegiant to a party. But this is a good place to start for the same goal.” Mike Whatley (CMC ’11), Vice-President of Operations for the Claremont Republicans, echoed this goal: “It is a good thing to come together, and hold events together in a friendly environment.”

Yet, the debate over the choice of TV channel almost turned the event hostile. A half-dozen Republicans charged the party’s organizers with partisanship because they chose CNN over Fox News. To appease both sides, the CPU decided to switch between channels every 30 minutes. Yet, Mr. Whatley told me that “CNN was better anyway.”

By 6 PM, The Hub was full of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and voting in California was still open for another two hours. Sometime after 6 p.m., CNN made a projection—Barack Obama had won Delaware. The crowd of Obama supporters was glowing and cheering. On the other side, the response was more hushed during Republican projections—when John McCain won New York, the crowd remained mostly unmoved with a few scattered claps and boos.

None of the organizations in the CPU endorsed a candidate as a club, and are now focused on future events and funding. They are planning an “unconventional partisan debate” during Alumni Weekend, and are seeking funding as an organization (a consortium within a consortium?), instead of using funds from each member club. This time, club funds bought sets of red, white, and blue balloons and a handy delegate chart that was much easier to follow than that of the Situation Room at CNN.

Breaking from the usual CMC party scene, the clubs did not buy alcohol with their funds. “No one here is looking to get smashed on a Tuesday night,” said Ms. Maloney. Still, a few students improvised with Chardonnay (Obama supporters).

In CMC’s community of political involvement and partisanship, many students loved the bipartisan atmosphere. Molly Doyle (CMC ’09) said, “I’m just so excited to be here. This event would only happen at CMC.”