Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Trump, Pelosi, and the Decline of Institutional Roles



                      The Context

President Trump’s State of the Union address yesterday was highly partisan and triumphant, filled with more than the usual amount of stagecraft and “reality show” moments. But it was bookmarked by two unprecedented events that overshadowed the speech itself: Trump refusing to shake Speaker Pelosi’s hand, and Pelosi ripping the president's speech in half.

Perhaps both events were calculated, as some have speculated; perhaps they reflected the emotions of the moment. But I would argue that they also signified a recent and distressing trend in American politics: the erosion of respect our political leaders have for each other and for the constitutional roles they play.

Many people have spoken out about the numerous ways that Trump has broken norms of presidential behavior and acts “unpresidential.” Trump has particular contempt for other officers of American government, including the speakership. His failure to return Pelosi’s handshake follows months of insults against the Speaker on Twitter and a remarkably personal and bitter December letter to Pelosi accusing her of “violating your oaths [sic] of office.” Lest one is tempted to chalk this up to mere partisanship, or Trump’s lingering bitterness about impeachment, recall that Trump was willing to attack Speaker Paul Ryan when he perceived him as disloyal, such as on the issue of birthright citizenship. (Green)

The Social Science Facts 
Let's discuss the social science behind the current reality TV presidency and administration we live in, and try to understand if there is hope for the future. Although social science cannot be proven as facts, the following “facts” are simply evidence and conclusions based on statistical analysis

Let's discuss how our two party system got us to this reality and try to understand the role political parties play in American politics. First off we ought to understand the significance of political parties and why we have them. What is a party? Contemporary scholars view parties as teams of politicians whose paramount goal is to win electoral office.  These teams make promises about what they will do if elected, standing for re-election based on their records of implementing their programs. Parties in the US are best understood as coalitions of interest groups and activists seeking to capture and use government for their particular goals, which range from material self-interest to high-minded idealism. (Bawn) 
Throughout history we keep seeing changes in what the definition of a party ought to be, party beliefs, policies and where they stand on the political spectrum. We have also witness how our two parties in our two party system have change and shifted to complete opposites. During the time of Lincoln, the  Republican Party was the "progressive and liberal" party and the Democratic Party was the party of conservative values and white supremacy.
Fast forward time to 2020, The Democratic Party is now the party of liberal and progressive ideas, and the Republican party is the party of conservative policies, and although it is not a party that openly supports white supremacy, the now Republican party can be affiliated with such ideals and policies, especially after the election of Donald Trump. This two party system has created bigger problems, it has created a polarized political atmosphere, and the State of the Union is an example that best describes where we are standing now in our political world.

Party identity is currently playing a major role in our political atmosphere, as we draw closer to the 2020 Presidential Elections we will see how party identification will help elect a new president or re-elect the first impeached president of the United States. Party identification is central to the study of American political behavior, yet there remains disagreement over whether it is largely instrumental or expressive in nature.  Partisanship according to Campbell as defined in The American Voter is both, a set of beliefs and feelings that culminate a sense of “psychological attachment” to a political party. (Huddy, Mason, Aaroe 2015) I don't think that never in the history of modern American politics we have seen this phenomenon, and that is voters' loyalty not just to a party but to a candidate as well.

There are two competing views of partisanship, Instrumental perspective, partisanship is a running tally of party performance, ideological beliefs and proximity to the party in terms of one’s preferred policies. The expressive approach in partisanship is an enduring identity strengthened by social affiliations to gender religious, and ethnic or racial groups. These social affiliations with a party and its associated groups promote an emotional attachment to the party, generate stability over time in partisan identification and vote choice.  Social identity theory provides a strong foundation for the study of partisanship and political involvement. It seems that we tend to let our emotions rule over our critical thinking and we often let our emotions make our decisions when it comes to party affiliation; emotion is a prelude to our actions. (Huddy, Mason, Aaroe 2015) The results of the 2016 elections is a good example that can best describe how party identity and emotions helped elect a man without a specific political agenda but a slogan.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, "is there hope to seeing an end to extreme political polarization?" When it comes to political theory, all answers to such questions can be subjective. The reality is as long as we have parties, especially a two party system we will never see an end to polarization. We could however, come to a more "civilized" atmosphere where the two sides can find common ground and work together, if voters become more educated in politics. Voter ignorance gives parties the opportunity to win with candidates more extreme than swing voters would like if they know better.  (Bawn)




Why Donald Trump was Always Going to get Impeached (and Always Going to get Acquitted)



The Impeachment Vote
On December 18, 2019, the United States held its breath as the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. It held its breath again on February 5, 2020 as the Senate voted to acquit him, or free him from all charges.
President Trump had two Articles, or charges, brought against him. The first charge was Abuse of Power. The investigation began when a whistleblower raised concerns that Trump was trying to coerce Ukraine into investigating the Biden family, as Joe Biden is an opponent in the 2020 presidential elections. The second Article of Impeachment was Obstruction of Congress. It states that the White House ignored subpoenas requesting documents and testimony relating to the impeachment investigation.
               Though many news articles framed each vote as suspenseful, nearly all congress members voted with the other members in their party. The House of Representatives currently has 197 Republicans, 232 Democrats, and 1 Independent member. The Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independent members.
In the House of Representatives, only a simple majority vote was required to Impeach President Trump. Two Democrats voted against the Articles, one of which is expected to switch parties. One Democrat voted for Article I and against Article II. Another voted “present” for both articles, meaning she chose not to vote for or against impeachment.
From Politico

In the Senate, a 2/3 majority was required to convict Trump, or remove him from office. The votes were ultimately along party lines, with the exception of Mitt Romney, a Republican, who voted on Article I to convict.

 From Politico


Why are we Loyal to our Party?
But why are people so loyal to their political parties? There is no law requiring all Democrats or all Republicans to vote together or to vote a certain way. In the remainder of this article, I will discuss different perspectives of what influences and contributes to party loyalty among the American public and members of Congress, and why they matter.
               Political Scientists Leonie Huddy, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe describe two ways to think about political participation. An instrumental perspective roots partisanship in how successful the party is in getting what it wants and an individual’s agreement with the party’s policies. The expressive perspective frames partisanship as part of an individual’s identity. Partisanship is strengthened by other social factors like race, gender, or religion and often leads to an emotional attachment to your party.
               Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe propose that the expressive model may better explain the high levels of party affiliation and loyalty that we see today in American politics. Through a series of studies, they found that people who strongly identify themselves as a Republican or Democrat had greater emotional responses when threatened with a defeat or promised a victory than those who weakly identify with a party.
Additionally, and perhaps most significantly, a threat to the status of one’s political party created a stronger emotional response than a threat to a major policy position held by one’s party.
Another study by Lilliana Mason and Julie Wronski found that Republicans tend to identify more closely with the party than Democrats.
More people today do identify strongly with their party. Americans today are more ideologically divided than ever, with most Democrats to the left of the average Republican, and most Republicans to the right of the average Democrat. The percentage of people with a “highly negative view” of the opposite party has doubled since 1994. And this gap is especially large among those who are highly active in politics.

This increased division is also clear in Congress, as shown in the graphic below. While in 1973 there was significant overlap of ideology between Democrats and Republican, today the parties are nearly completely divided.


Conclusion
How does this all relate to the impeachment vote? People are strongly affiliated with their party, and are socially invested in their party doing well. When many people see a threat to their political party, they take it as a threat to their social or personal identity. Members of the American Public do this, and politicians do it too. Thus, a betrayal to the party becomes a personal betrayal, and people get angry.
The response to Mitt Romney’s decision to break from the Republican party and vote “guilty” on Impeachment Article I illustrates this point. While many people praised Romney for having the courage to go against the Republican party, many people saw it as a slight against the party and called for Utah to formally condemn his actions. People on social media proclaimed that they voted for him in 2012, but would never do so today because he is not the politician they thought he was. He was not a defender of the Republican party in they way they wanted a Senator to be.
So why was Donald Trump always going to get impeached and always going to get acquitted? Because the Impeaching House of Representatives has more Democrats than Republicans, and the Acquitting Senate has more Republicans than Democrats. In nearly all cases, members of congress voted the way they were expected to, because today in America, it seems to not be about the issues. It is about the Party.


Sources
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/801429948/not-guilty-trump-acquitted-on-2-articles-of-impeachment-as-historic-trial-closes
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-annotated/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown
https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-impeachment-vote-count-house-results/
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-impeachment-vote-count-senate-results/
https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=47a4e726-jttt-tIgI-ZH4T-Uw25d874608d
https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=93a72a6a-6Mbk-j0VH-9wsz-n4901a3266cd
https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/utahns-laud-decry-mitt-romneys-vote-to-convict-trump

Social Media: The New Efficient Secret?



            Donald Trump and Members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have changed the way that American voters get information about politics, and as a consequence, changed the way the media reports on political proceedings. The United States, however, does not hold the monopoly on political change resulting from social media. Other countries have experienced dramatic change due to the rapid rise of social media as a primary news source.

            Writing about Victorian England, Cox quoted an English voter that,  “… would vote for a pig if the party put one up.” His argument centers around the idea that the rules and nature of parliamentary systems reduce the impact of individual Members of Parliament (MPs). This is due, in part, to the efficient secret – the phenomenon where the Cabinet serves both in an executive and legislative capacity. MPs toe party lines to ensure that when their party is elected they receive an elusive cabinet position. This concept of political systems, in Cox’s mind, exists to serve voters. At election time, voters are presented with a party platform detailing what each party plans to do while in office. The electorate votes for a local MP based on the platforms of their party. Once in office, the government generally focuses on executing promises from its campaign platform.

            This resigns individual MPs to mere cogs in the system of governance. The rise of social media has given individual Members of Parliament a voice outside of their whipped party line. MPs can post heated exchanges showing them standing up for their constituents in Question Period, or show their disagreement with the party during debates in the House of Commons (even if the member still votes on party lines), or advertise a newly tabled Private Member’s Bill that may never see the floor of Parliament. Social media can increase the accountability and connectivity of individual Members to their constituents and reduce the power of their party.

            To test this, I explored the relationship between social media posting, viewership, and media coverage of S031 statements from the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). This is an excellent case study to explore this. An S031 is a statement made by a Member of Parliament following the daily Question Period. Allotment of S031s is split evenly among parties based on the number of seats each party represents in the House of Commons. Once each party receives its S031slots, the party divides these among individual Members, usually evenly between front and back benchers. Although the CPC typically allows its members to write their own S031s, sometimes the Opposition Leader’s Office steps in and requests (or writes entirely) that the Member deliver a statement on a particular issue. Canada has a parliamentary system modelled after the system in the United Kingdom, which makes it an excellent choice to test the merits of Cox’s theory outside the UK. The CPC is currently Canada’s official opposition which makes it an ideal case study; the official opposition receives the second highest allotment of S031s, and the opposition is less constrained by the Prime Ministers’ Office on the content of their statements. However, because the CPC is the official opposition it has a strong leadership team and shadow cabinet that mirrors the government’s cabinet.

            For the 2015-2016 Parliamentary session, I examined all of the S031s delivered by a Conservative Member of Parliament (353 statements) and determined if they were written by the individualMP or by the OLO based on whether they were partisan and policy focused or if they were non-partisan and constituency focused. Next, I looked at the Facebook page and YouTube channel of each MP to determine if the statement was posted and then calculated the S031s total number of viewers. Finally, I searched news sources to see if the S031 had received any media coverage.

Former CPC Leader Rona Ambrose Delivering a Statement in the House of Commons. Source: The Canadian Press

I tested the difference between OLO and MP written S031s based on posting, viewership, and news coverage. I found a statistically significant difference between the speeches that were written by  the OLO and those that were written by MPs. An MP written statement had an average viewership of 5,423.9 per statement, an OLO written statement had an average viewership of 10,920.7. This seems to prove Cox’s theory that voters are more concerned with the party than individual MPs. However, this could be due to other factors including the broader mass appeal of partisan S031s.

Other measures help explain the behavior of MPs in a partisan context; 84.47% of S031s that were posted to social media were written by the MPs themselves, and 88% of S031s that received news coverage were not written by the OLO.

These results pose several questions, especially regarding the ways that individual MPs feel about their parties and how MPs connect with constituents. These results could show a disconnect between the OLO and MPs, and they provide a case for MPs following the Cox model to focus more on seeking cabinet positions. These results could also show some dissonance between MPs and the central media in reporting material that is interesting to constituents.

Although this case study has some interesting implications, it also has some real limitations. First, it would be better if it was expanded to more years, political systems, and political parties. Additional controls for social media following would also be useful.  

Sources: 


https://www.ourcommons.ca/publicationsearch/en/

https://www.facebook.com/

https://www.youtube.com/ 

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=78e5a567-h5jc-Ykmi-qZSW-hzeeb92c28df

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=5b5947c5-KRbk-RwAE-TxjW-tH7e525c89c4



So What: Impeachment and Party Factional Splits


So What: Impeachment and Party Factional Splits



The impeachment proceedings which occurred over the past few months was not a common occurrence within the history of the United States. In fact, with the inclusion of President Trump, only three United States’ Presidents have formally been impeached by the United States House. With the increasing political polarization within the United States, it isn’t too surprising that evidence of polarization would appear among the votes for the impeachment of the President which is exemplified by all of the Republicans in the House that voted “no” for both articles of impeachment, and all but five Democrats voted “yes” for both articles of impeachment. These voting lines for the articles of impeachment clearly demonstrate the sorting of members within congress which is a product of political parties that exist to promote the collective goals and objectives of the party that is comprised of individuals who generally have the same ideological goals.


Nonetheless the concept of factional splits became a salient feature within Trump’s impeachment proceedings within the Senate. In the first Article of impeachment, Senator Mitt Romney stood alone in his vote to convict President Trump on Abuse of Power. Masket noted that social issues have caused rifts in the Republican party in between 2005 and 2010. He cited abortion related laws as a prevalent reason for why a fracture existed in the Republican party at this time. For Mitt Romney, the behavior of the President became the founding factor for his defection from the rest of his Republican colleagues in the vote of Article 1. While there is a great deal of disagreement over the motivations of his vote to convict the President on Abuses of Power, his action presents a relevant example for the significance of intraparty cleavages. Since Senator Romney’s historic vote, we are currently witnessing the implications of standing alone and voting in opposition to the other members of a political party and it’s likely that these observations would be seen within the Democratic party as well. 


The acknowledgment of factional splits should also be understood within the context of Party Cooperation. If members of a political party show signs of defection, the party coalition will be less inclined to involve them in matters that seek to advance the party’s agenda in fear of individual members undercutting it. In respect of Mitt Romney’s vote, we are currently seeing a mass condemnation directed at him by the President’s loyal followers which is not surprising given the emotional appeal that the President successfully advertised during his campaign which was a significant feature of his election success.  Regardless of Senator Romney’s 79.4% score which describes how often he votes in line with Trump’s policy positions, his impeachment vote had the most pervasive affect among members of the Republican party. The term “RINO” is often used on social media to describe Republican members of the House and the Senate as being Republican in name only and not in practice and given the impeachment proceedings of President Trump, many people on the right will understandably feel as though Senator Romney will continue to undercut Trump’s agenda. This relates to the overarching theme of how party cleavages and factions encourage a dramatic collapse in the party’s public perception.


When a factional split occurs within a party, we might expect to see a correction of sorts at the polls when senators like Mitt Romney are up for reelection. Senator Romney isn’t up for reelection until 2024 which is quite some time away and may perhaps benefit his reelection efforts during this year given the amount of time that will pass from now until then. There are many other variables that are also likely to play a role in Senator Romney’s reelection success in 2024. If the president is not reelected this year, then it’s unlikely that Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Trump on the first article of impeachment will be used against him during his reelection year. Nevertheless, factional splits within parties are usually addressed by threats of being primaried or being voted out of office, and when someone crosses the current President of the United States, Republicans are very unlikely to forget. Senator Romney’s vote was so impactful that “RecallRomney” trended for a while on Twitter which was a social media effort by Republicans to remove Mitt Romney from the Senate in retaliation for his vote to convict the President. While many users who participated in the growth of this trend may have been aware that sitting senators cannot be recalled, the likely motivation behind the trend was to voice their displeasure with his vote and to send a message to other Republican office holders should they refuse to fall in line with the party for votes that could be viewed as standing with or against the political party.


Saturday, February 15, 2020

How to Succeed at Politics Without Really Trying: Mitt Romney Defies His Party, and Gets Away With It

After months of investigations, trials, and high political drama, the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump are over. For better or worse, the President was acquitted of all charges brought against him by the House of Representatives.  The final votes to decide the fate of his administration were unsurprisingly partisan.  All Democrats voted to convict, while all Republicans voted to acquit. 
All Republicans except for one that is.  Mitt Romney, the freshman senator from Utah voted against the President. According to The Atlantic, He did so out of a sense of duty to uphold an oath to God to administer impartial justice through his vote.  The Senator has faced harsh criticism from his party after standing alone to defy its leader.

              
               Senator Romney Announcing His Intention to Vote to Convict
                          Photo Credit: USA Today

Senator Romney’s vote seems out of place when seen in the context of increasingly partisan American Politics.  Almost unanimously, Republicans have rallied around President Trump, and Democrats have condemned him with one voice.  The high stakes of the impeachment proceedings have only exasperated these trends.  So what lead Senator Romney to defy this trend by defying his party?
According to the Atlantic, the Senator cites his religious convictions.  These likely played a large role in shaping his sense of what the correct vote was, but other Republican senators espouse the same belief in justice and in duty to God as Senator Romney.  However, these Senators did not break party ranks and vote to convict the President.
Even some of our recent readings could be used to suggest that Senator Romney should have voted along with the president.  Bawn argues that parties are formed and influenced by a coalition of outside interest groups that strive to nominate those who have demonstrated loyalty to their interests and will vote the party line.  Masket shows how in most cases, strong partisan groups formed in the California Legislature, especially when strong interests played a role in nomination. With these arguments in mind, it seems Strang that Senator Romney would break with his party on something so important as a Presidential impeachment trial.
But Masket’s argument is also the key to why Senator Romney felt free to vote against the Republican Party. Masket also showed that when cross filing prevented interest groups from dominating the nomination process, party discipline in the legislature completely broke down.  Law makers preferred to vote moderately rather than as “partisan warriors.” Without pressure from the interest groups who got them their nominations, members of the legislature were free to act more in line with what they thought was best (perhaps what they believed personally but more likely, at least according to Masket, in a moderate way that helped them win reelection)
The situation surrounding Mitt Romney’s nomination to his current seat is more analogous with Masket’s account of cross filing. Like many of the politicians in Masket’s account, Senator Romney gained the Utah Republican Party’s nomination seat without the support of the establishment party.  According to the Washington Post, in June of 2018 the former presidential candidate, still hugely popular with the conservative Latter-Day Saint base of voters in Utah, was able to secure his nomination after losing a nomination vote at a Republican state convention.  Despite efforts by more radical members of the party establishment to control the nomination process, Mitt Romney was able to gain the support of his party.  This is similar to the way California legislature candidates were able to circumvent their party faction’s gatekeeping role.
Senator Romney may therefore feel less beholden to a group of more radically partisan state interests.  This could explain the difference in vote between Senator Romney and his fellow Utah Senator Mike Lee.  Both men are conservative Republican Latter-Day Saints with the same constituency.  But the difference in the way they came to power could explain the difference in how they voted.  Senator Lee may have felt the same conflict between party loyalty and duty to God but was not free to act without pressure from party interests the way Senator Romney was. Of course, this is not necessarily the case, Senator Lee may have felt that President Trump was indeed innocent. However, Lee’s similar religious convictions to Senator Romney suggest he may have experienced the same tug-a-war.
Because he was not beholden to special interests who had helped him gain power, Senator Romney was free to vote his mind in the impeachment proceedings of the President.  This suggests that efforts should be made to limit the ability of special interests to dominate legislative bodies, thus freeing congressmen and women to vote more in line with the truth, or at least more in line with their districts.



Washington Post Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/midterms/live-primary-election-results/mitt-romney-wins-senate-nomination-in-utah/?arc404=true

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/06/mitt-romney-speech-senator-explains-vote-trump-impeachment-trial/4676921002/

Bawn Article:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/theory-of-political-parties-groups-policy-demands-and-nominations-in-american-politics/2F7996D5365C105C3B91CD56E6A1FAA3

Masket Article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00263.x