Bayonets, Horses, and the Defence Budget

In 2012 Barack Obama delivered a stinging blow to Mitt Romney during one of the presidential debates:

“You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets… We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

“It’s not a game of battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our capabilities?'”

Three years later, and the Republican Party has not moved beyond Romney’s count-the-tanks approach. It’s easy politics; hammering the Democrats for lowering spending and projecting an image of security that is easily understandable for the public.

This obsession over numbers does little to advance the debate over American security and international policy.

The Republican Numbers Game

The topic arose during the first Republican primary debate earlier this year.

There was a broad consensus among the current slate of candidates that military spending must increase. The military, designed as former Governor Huckabee so eloquently put it to ‘kill people and break things’, was lamented for falling into disrepair under Obama’s leadership.

Ben Carson argued forcefully that a recent dip in military spending was limiting American overseas policy:

“Well, what we have to stop and think about is that we have weakened ourselves militarily to such an extent that if affects all of our military policies. Our Navy is at its smallest size since 1917; our Air Force, since 1940.”

Chris Christie took the issue further, laying out specific targets:

“I agree with what Dr. Carson said earlier. The first thing we need to do to make America stronger is to strengthen our military, and I put out a really specific plan: no less than 500,000 active duty soldiers in the Army. No less than 185,000 active duty marines in the Marine Corps. Bring us to a 350 ship Navy again, and modernize the Ohio class of submarines, and bring our Air Force back to 2,600 aircraft that are ready to go.”

Christie’s ‘New Model Army’ was not costed out. On the other hand, Marco Rubio has put a budgetary figure on what his plans would mean, claiming he would increase military spending by $1 trillion over the next ten years.

Rand Paul clashed  with the Senator from Florida on the issue during a recent debate, though primarily on the basis of limiting government spending, not on the merits or necessity of such a budget increase.

Rand Paul notwithstanding, running for President as a Republican still requires a hawkishness that almost automatically necessitates increasing military spending. Being a hawk in contemporary American politics is all too often translated into a rhetorical arms race of numbers.

How Much Does the U.S. Spend?

At the moment, defence accounts for roughly 16% of all federal spending in the United States.

To put that into an international context, America spendings more on its military in real terms than at least the next seven highest spenders combined.

Since the end of the Cold War American power has often been gauged by the pre-eminence of its military might, not its ability to develop alliances and international peace agreements. The desire to maintain hyperpower status has meant that policymakers have been content to pump government expense into the military machine.

This has been the case for years, and does not seem to be threatened by the fact that President Obama has reduced spending due to the closure of high intensity American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is worth noting that, although military spending as dipped under President Obama, it is still at a high level relative to recent years.

Obama has taken defence budget to a position comparable to that of George W. Bush prior to the troop surge in Iraq. Despite this, Republicans like Marco Rubio claim it is necessary to ramp up spending to ensure security.

The logic of Senator Rubio and Mr Huckabee ignores the fact America cannot simply buy security. The most immediate contemporary threat of ISIS does not require more military hardware, but more intelligent ways of neutralising potential threats and building alliances to suffocate aggressive ideologies.

In addition, focusing on troop numbers, naval figures, and budgetary increases does nothing to address the potential threats of the future, including cyber attacks and espionage.

The Military-Industrial Complex Revisited

During his farewell address in 1961 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned of what he called the ‘military industrial complex’.

Eisenhower pointed out that climbing levels of military spending, even during the height of the Cold War, were not based solely on strategic or tactical need. Instead, the arms industry, military establishment, and certain legislators in Congress aligned to perpetuate a policy of growing military spending.

Jobs in certain parts of America relied, and still rely, on the U.S. government signing contracts for military production. Politicians from the states of these workers subsequently vow to protect their employment, while simultaneously allying with military figures to argue that such spending is necessary to maintaining international U.S. leadership.

Defence companies like Lockheed Martin have sophisticated lobbying tools  in Washington D.C. and are responsible for employing Americans throughout the country to ensure broad support politically.

The end of the Cold War has done little to undermine the military industrial complex. Instead, after 9/11 military spending steadily increased, with George W. Bush sending defence costs soaring with two high profile international wars.

The result is that, even with a widespread reassessment of international threat and the American response, there is a bulwark of opposition in D.C. that will obstruct any significant reform of military spending.

The Republican numbers game is here to stay, and will continue to shape how Americans view security in the 21st century.

The Wit and Wisdom of Ben Carson

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has been enjoying a boost in Republican polls over the past few weeks, leading the field in some cases. However, Carson’s soft spoken demeanour has masked some extreme and invective comments throughout this campaign.

In contrast with the bombast and hyperbole of Donald Trump, Carson’s calm persona has enabled him to connect with grassroots conservatives and appear reasonable.

Added to which, Carson’s religion and bashing of ‘political correctness’ resonates with many conservatives who feel disillusioned with contemporary political commentary and mass media.

Yet despite this, Carson has made some extremely divisive and ill-researched comments that has sneaked past widespread attention. Perhaps now he is considered a frontrunner, statements such as these listed below will come under greater scrutiny.

On…. Hitler proving the need for gun ownership

“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed… I’m telling you, there is a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first.”

On… the Pyramids of Gisa

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it.”

On… how to react to a mass shooting

“Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me, I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all,'”

On… choosing to be gay

“A lot of people who go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay, so did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,”

On… Obamacare

“Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery… And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”

On… sexual politics

“How about we have a transgender bathroom?”

On…. political correctness

“I mean very much like Nazi Germany — and I know you’re not supposed to talk about Nazi Germany, but I don’t care about political correctness — you know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate a population… We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe, and it’s because of the PC police, it’s because of politicians, because of news — all of these things are combining to stifle people’s conversation.”

The Bush Decline

Jeb Bush entered the Republican primaries as the clear frontrunner. He had name recognition, experience as Governor of a crucial swing state, the ability to appeal to hispanic Americans, and the full weight of the party machinery behind him in terms of fundraising and endorsements.

In late October Bush slipped to 5th in the Republican field. His campaign is set not only to be a failure, but an embarrassment.

As part of a family where your father was President and your brother a two-term President, to fail to get past the Republican primary would hurt Jeb Bush’s legacy. What’s gone wrong?

• The Anti-Establishment Movement

Most likely the biggest single reason for Bush’s struggles over the past few months has been the fact that Donald Trump seized control of Republican polls, used these to assume centre stage during debates, and changed the entire language of the primaries.

Trump and Ben Carson have surged on a wave of anti-establishment feeling emanating from grassroots conservatives. These voters consider Washington as fundamentally broken, if not corrupt. Many seek to aggressively strip down the federal government by hacking away at spending in almost any corner.

This has boosted these ‘outsider candidates’, Trump, Carson, and to a lesser extent Carly Fiorina, to prominence. It has been almost impossible for Jeb Bush to step into the centre ground with authority, demonstrate his ability to lead, and set forth a positive message for conservative America. Every time he attempts to do so, Trump has whipped up anger in the base of the party over immigration and governmental incompetence.

Jeb Bush has not coped well with the anti-establishment faction. After all, he is the quintessential establishment candidate, benefiting from support within his party and fundraising.

• Energy Problems

At the same time, Bush himself holds much of the blame for his flagging campaign. Though he insisted he would be a positive candidate who enjoyed the rigours of the race, this enjoyment has not always been detectable during public appearances.

Donald Trump frequently attacks his rivals as being ‘low energy’, but in the case of Jeb Bush, he may just have a point. Even the most generous of Jeb-supporters would struggle to argue that he energises a crowd during his stump speech, or that he is the most gifted orator and debater.

Despite this, Jeb Bush does know the issues. The problem is that the current Republican forum does not reward his style of communicating policy questions or party strategy.

Added to this, Jeb is undoubtedly far less comfortable in front of a camera or crowd than his brother. While W. may have been mocked for his less than smooth speaking style, he did have the ability to delivery rhetorical punches and charm crowds with his folksy style.

• The Immigration Issue

One of the reasons Jeb is being displaced in the polls by the anti-establishment candidates is his portrayal as being soft of immigration.

This is somewhat of an unfair criticism, and is in fact is a reflection of a fundamental fissure within the Republican Party between moderates who accept the demographic changes that are, and will be, taking place in America, and a brigade of backlashers, who consider it their goal to prevent immigration and ‘fight back’

Throughout the early weeks of the primary season Trump managed to galvanise the anti-immigrant grassroots of the party, leaving Jeb fumbling to articulate precisely the reason why even his ‘modest’ immigration reforms are necessary.

The whirlwind of nativism whipped by ‘Trump & co’ has given moderate precious little time or space to explain to their voters why immigration reform is needed, or to be valued for the GOP.

• Marco Rubio

Then there’s the young upstart taking away the spotlight.

Rubio and Bush both offer the Republican Party a chance to steal Florida’s 29 electoral votes in 2016. In the past few elections, the Sunshine State has been one of single most important battleground states, and a homegrown Floridian candidate is a great advantage when facing the Democrats.

Unfortunately, Rubio has accelerated in recent weeks as Bush has faltered. Gaining more recognition from the media and public popularity, Rubio’s youth and enthusiasm has supplanted the steady hands of Bush. Added to which, Rubio may be more able to reach out to hispanic voters and help expand the party beyond its predominantly white demographic.

This was most evident in Rubio’s swift dismissal of Bush’s lame attack against the Senator’s voting record during the debate in Boulder, Colorado. No one watching that moment could fail to see that one candidate was thriving in this environment, while the other was miserably vying to stay in the race.

Bush probably will still see the campaign to its end, bitter or otherwise. But now he is fighting for his life in a crowded field that has yet to respond to his vision for the country and calm the chaos of the Republican primaries.

In Defence of Hillary

At the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas Hillary Clinton delivered a powerful rebuke to her critics.

Criticisms of Hillary stem from the surging popularity of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, considered far more progressive than Clinton, a ‘Draft Biden’ movement that is calling on the current Vice President to get into the race, and the lingering controversy over her use of a private email account while Secretary of State.

Hillary’s performance on October 13th in Las Vegas should calm the waters of her campaign in the short term. However, it is worth taking a moment to consider the benefits of Hillary entering the White House in January 2017, particularly against her foremost rival, Senator Bernie Sanders.

• Guardian of Obamacare

One of the most basic benefits of having Hillary enter the White House is that she will be able to protect Barack Obama’s most important legacy: the Affordable Care Act.

With many Republicans chomping at the bit to tear Obamacare to pieces, simply placing a Democrat in the Oval Office will protect the legislation from immediate attack and continue to enrol Americans into health insurance.

So, ‘Why does it have to be Hillary?’. Well, simply put, judging on the best information available at present, Hillary Clinton offers the Democratic Party the best chance to beat any of the Republican candidates.

Protecting the Affordable Care Act should not be taken lightly, nor for granted. There are many who detest the law, both in high politics and the grassroots. Right now, in late 2015, Hillary Clinton looks like the best guardian for President Obama’s key domestic achievement.

• A steady hand in international affairs

Bernie Sanders’ rise has been impressive, but the Senator from Vermont has a notable lack of foreign policy credibility.

The next president must understand the complexities of contemporary foreign policy given the very serious problems around the world. He or she will inherit a world order that demands intelligent use of American power in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, as well as a real acknowledgement of the geopolitical implications of an economic superpower in China and a militarily punchy Russia.

Sanders’ problem is not only one of inexperience: it is of oversimplification. As a populist to his core, he has a tendency to bring many international issues back to American workers and families, and a refusal to contemplate use of force in certain situations.

Yet the next resident must comprehend the wider international consequences of retrenchment. President Obama has taken a steady line on foreign policy, often using what appears to be the bare minimum American commitment to demonstrate an interest in Middle Eastern affairs. The practise of American power in the post-Iraq years demands delicacy and fair judgement.

Clinton has already has considerable experience, personal clout, and deeper understanding of international affairs, and would be a far safer pair of hands in the White House than her rivals given the turbulence of world affairs.

• Dealing with Congress

In the early years of Obama’s presidency he frequently clashed with congressional Republicans, largely because of his pushing through Obamacare into law. This divide between Congress and the Executive branch of government has only widened since then, with Republicans gaining control of the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the ‘Freedom Caucus’, or ‘Hell No Party’, has burrowed within the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. The Freedom Caucus is a group of around 40 representatives that are hardline, often Tea Party, conservatives that oppose virtually  any federal government action.

This means that congressional Republicans are pulled to the right. There is a good chance that the Republicans will remain in power in the House of Representatives in 2016, and in order to find areas of common ground to work together a Democratic president must be able to appeal to the responsible, governing Republicans.

This ain’t Bernie: the democratic socialist from Vermont would whip up a panic in conservative America. The Freedom Caucus would likely grow in number, and practical conservatives would be pressured to block any initiative sponsored by the White House.

Hillary is a safer option than Sanders, no doubt about that. But in this case, when Congress may very well remain in Republican hands, this might mean a better chance to tackle real problems in America. Going to far with Bernie risks Congress recoiling into a non-cooperative war footing.

• Widening the Democratic Party

Bernie Sanders’ deepens the party, preaching to a bedrock of left wingers in New England and coastal cities. Hillary, on the other hand, widens the party.

Sanders’ enjoys touting his ability to galvanise large, energetic crowds at his speeches. In particular, Sanders’ is reaching out to a young demographic who matured during the era of Bill Clinton,when democratic politics focused on the economy, not the people directly. For these Americans, having someone talk about democratic socialism in the national arena is exciting.

Unfortunately, Sanders’ politics are massively polarising. For every graduate inspired by the idea of reigning in corporate excess there is a conservative family baulking at the prospect of anyone who self describes as any form of socialist running for president.

In the recent Las Vegas debate, Sanders’ argued that people needed to be educated about what democratic socialism really means, and stated that he was primarily opposed to ‘casino capitalism’ practised on Wall Street. Sadly, given the extreme conservatism popular across parts of America, an immediate change of perceptions is a pipe dream.

Added to which, relying on young voters to sustain a politician is rarely a strategy for success: they are fickle, do not reliably turn out for elections, and change their political views as they get jobs and mortgages.

By occupying the centre ground, Hillary is able to present herself as a responsible and confident candidate, whilst also championing moderately liberal ideals and policies. At a time when the Republicans are being pulled apart by competing gravitational forces of ideology, Hillary Clinton has the national popularity and experience to step into office and bring the country together in a way no other current candidate could hope for.

• Taking on gun control

It is not likely that significant gun control laws will be passed in the next four, or even eight years, without some structural changes to the NRA and its political donations.

However, if there is to be a movement to introduce more common-sense, practical measures to limit civilian deaths by gun violence, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to push for reform.

Bernie Sanders’ record on gun control came under fire at Las Vegas, but is understandably grounded in his constituency politics: Vermont is a state with a popular hunting demographic, and it would be political suicide for Sanders’ to take a stand against gun ownership.

Hillary, on the other hand, has staked a firmer position on the matter and positioned herself as the natural successor to President Obama when it comes to seeking a solution to consistently high levels of gun violence.

That said, the likelihood of any such legislation most likely relies on the Democrats taking back both the Senate and House of Representatives, and even then it would be a struggle.

How Black Lives Matter Matters in 2016

A spate of riots triggered by police brutality has born a movement called Black Lives Matter. The group is exerting pressure on politicians to take steps to address the reality of racism against African Americans, particularly when it comes to treatment by police officers and the criminal justice system.

Here are a few of the ways in which Black Lives Matter may influence the presidential primaries in 2016, and the ensuing race for the Oval Office:

• Recognising that ‘All Lives Matter’ isn’t enough

A common response to the Black Lives Matter movement has been to say ‘well, all lives matter.’

Though the sentiment of the statement is obviously without question, a politician who falls into this trap is essentially demonstrating that he or she does not understand the movement or its importance.

The Black Lives Matter movement is, by its very existence, a reflection of a widespread perception that black citizens in America are not treated equally. For a public figure to fail to recognise this basic premise of the movement instantly sends the signal that they do not grasp the gravity of the current racial inequalities at play in the nation.

• Criminal justice reform

African American men are subject to far higher levels of stop and search questioning, and proportionally the prison population includes far more black Americans than their overall share of the national populace.

President Obama has sought to introduce reform into the criminal justice system in 2015. To start with, he has reduced mandatory minimum sentences of drug offences that were widely perceived to punish poor African Americans in excess of comparable drug crimes committed by affluent white Americans.

For example, crack cocaine usage carries a far higher penalty than powdered cocaine, which has the effect of racially segmenting punishments.

Given the high-publicity incidents of police brutality that fuelled Black Lives Matter, policing is one area that could be particularly receptive to change. Introducing more body cameras on police officers has helped reveal the reality of racialised policing in parts of the United States; more action on this subject could be an achievable and effective goal.

One measure of success for the Black Lives Matter movement could be how far they succeed in pushing criminal justice reform onto the national agenda in 2016.

• The Civil Rights Movement hangover: urban development

Reopening the question of race relations in America also opens up the opportunity of returning to the question of urban development.

After the landmark legislative achievements of the civil rights movement in the 1960s (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965), the focus of civil rights leaders, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr, turned to the underlying socio economic problems that were causing racial divisions.

Although MLK led a massive 1966 campaign in Chicago to shine a light on the condition of the urban poor, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 sought to provide for equal access to housing, the divisions and disparities in urban housing remains one of the lasting shortcomings of the civil rights movement.

If Black Lives Matter can apply some of its energy onto specific areas of policy, like urban development, the presidential candidates in 2016 may deliver clearer promises on what action could be taken.

• Party loyalty test

Thus far the reaction of Democratic candidates to Black Lives Matter has been muddled, with Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley struggling to appease the group, while Hillary Clinton has taken pre-emptive action by meeting with the group and showing herself to be a potential ally in the Oval Office.

For Republicans it has been far easier to simply respond ‘All Lives Matter’. As mentioned above, this does very little to satiate the movement itself, but will appeal to the largely white base of the party, and protect individual candidates from attack ads by rivals over giving in to civil unrest.

Currently Black Lives Matter therefore reinforces the Democratic Party’s image as being the party for African Americans and positive equal rights action. Over the past few Presidential elections, over 85% of the ‘black vote’ has gone to the Democrats.

Conversely, the movement is yet another indication that the Republicans lack the political dexterity to reach out to this key demographic while maintaining their core supporters.

After Obama: Domestic Questions

Will Obamacare Survive?

Barack Obama’s place in the history books is largely hinged on who his successor. If a Democrat wins in 2016, the Affordable Cart Act (Obamacare) should be safe for the time being.

The more people who buy into the new system, the harder it will be to de-construct Obama’s signature piece of legislation. Obamacare is increasing in popularity, and more Americans are signing up for health insurance from government-run exchanges.

In addition, while Congress is continuing to seek a legal option to curtail the powers of Obamacare, but it is unlikely at this point, after several such challenges, that much damage will be done to the law.

However, a Republican in the White House in 2017 could force a u-turn.

Most of the Republican field favour a repeal of the ACA, the law having assumed a chimera-like status for Tea Party groups. Even so, repealing the law will mean threatening the insurance of millions of Americans.

If a Democrat wins next year, not only will the ACA be reinforced by rising enrolement numbers, but Obama’s domestic legacy will be protected to the point where Obamacare will be virtually impossible to remove.

Will there be gun control reform?

Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Isla Vista, Binghampton, Fort Hood, Umpqua Community College.

Obama has had to make statements on incidents of gun violence 15 times throughout his presidency. In the past week, after the shooting in Oregon, he called on news outlets to compare deaths caused by gun violence with those of terrorism.

CNN did just that and produced this graphic showing the year on year figures.

Obama is visibly frustrated by his inability to shift the debate concerning gun control. In fact, the tide is going in the opposite direction.

Despite isolated incidents when gun violence persuades more people of the merits of gun control, specifically the Sandy Hook massacre that left 20 children dead, public opinion increasingly favours protecting individual rights for gun ownership.

The Pew graph below shows Americans favouring gun rights (in the darker line) has been rising, while the fainter line represents Americans favouring gun control:

Gun ownership is derived from the second amendment of the Constitution, a clause designed to provide for ‘a well regulated Militia’, and written before the United States had a professional army or organised police force.

The problem Obama has faced is that there is cocktail of factors that make acting on gun control particularly hard:

• Horrific incidents like Sandy Hook raise support for gun control, but they also result in a surge of Americans going out and buying guns out of fear of what they just saw on television, so gun ownership increases.
• The gun lobby remains highly influential. The NRA donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Senators and Congressmen friendly to gun rights, primarily Republicans. With pressure from above, in the form of these political donations, and below, in the guise of popular support and ownership of guns, Obama has faced an intractable situation.
• Supporters of gun rights argue that criminals, those who commit the brutal massacres that shock the nation, would not obey the law in any case. This logic is overly simplistic and ignores any possibility of reducing the availability of guns in the long term, but reflects an anxiety about the sheer numbers of guns in America now.
• The manufacture of guns has increased, which only exacerbates the problems further as Americans will only feel the need for their protection to an even greater degree. This means that proponents of gun ownership will be able to peddle their arguments for years to come, as Americans feel that the ‘bad guys’ will always be able to get their hands on a weapon in a country swamped with firearms, so why shouldn’t ‘good Americans’ too?

To add insult to injury, the very moderate ban on ‘assault weapons’ like AK-47 introduced in 1994 expired in 2004, and has not since been replaced.

Obama and his administration have been unable to shift the debate at all. Instead, recent massacres have diverted the issue into one of mental illness, avoiding the fundamental crisis of gun availability and the civic implications of widespread gun ownership.

A Republican winning in 2016 won’t touch the issue of gun rights. A Democrat may attempt to take a stand, but given the past few years, any progress on gun control looks unlikely.

Will politics be as divided?

During his farewell address in 1796 George Washington warned against the dangers of two party politics. Many of the Founding Fathers had the foresight to see that partisanship would corrupt a healthy body politic and distract from the facts of national issues, yet over the centuries the United States has fallen into strict two party systems.

Partisanship has gradually been on the rise over the past half century, but in recent years the rhetoric of party antagonism has been alarming.

President Obama has been a sort of lightening rod for Tea Party conservatives, to the extent that the Commander in Chief can have his nationality and religion questioned in mainstream political events, such as the recent rally for Donald Trump.

The crisis of partisanship is not simply that more government shutdowns are likely, or that the political centre is disintegrating, but that genuine progress on specific policy questions becomes much harder.

As this infographic shows, bipartisan cooperation has steadily been in decline for many years, and many on either side of the aisle now believe that their political opponents are threats to the United States.

For Obama, this has meant enduring charges that the Affordable Care Act, a very moderate measure compared to other western medical programs, is ‘socialist’.

No one is precisely sure why this trend towards partisan politics has occurred. Some argue it is a result of mass media, others claim it reflects a more fundamental, and worrying, divide in class and race between the two parties.

Whatever the cause, the next President will inherit a political culture determined by attack ads, smear campaigns, and governmental gridlock. Whether any of the potential candidates offer a conciliatory quality for their political opponents in D.C. is yet to be seen.

Will there be more action on climate change?

The issue of climate change remains under debate in Washington D.C. but there are indications that the momentum is moving towards governmental action and away from climate change deniers.

President Obama has taken several steps during his tenure to address environmental policy, and recently introduced new climate change action to reduce CO2 emmisions over the next fifteen years. He is pitching his plan not only on the basis of fighting global warming, but also on economic and health grounds that can relate to everyday Americans.

Popular opinion appears to be shifting towards supporting federal action against climate change, with a recent poll showing 59% of respondents wanting a President in 2016 who would favour government action.

However, in the Republican ranks there is dissent. Congressional Republicans are gearing up to fight back against the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on coal fired power plants, and our current slate of Republican presidential candidates are unwilling to commit to climate change policy.

In CNN’s recent primary debate the Republican hopefuls were asked whether they would support an ‘insurance policy’ approach to climate change, as articulated by Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz.

The essence of Shultz’s idea being that, while we may be unable to be sure of climate change and its implications, it is logical and sensible to have a set of policies in place, just in case.

The question did not go down well. Marco Rubio, a moderate on many policy issues, refused to countenance any serious climate change initiatives, arguing that he did not wish to risk the damaging American economy.

Whether the environment and energy policy will be a headline issue in 2016 is not yet known, but with the public appearing to shift towards governmental action, Republicans must be careful not to be caught out by an opinion shift.

Will there be a fight over education?

Barack Obama has not made education a central part of his domestic policy platform. The 44th President has expanded access for higher education and taken steps to make college admission easier, but the real battles over education have been taking place at the state level.

This is over Common Core. Common Core is a standardised system for teaching and grading across different states. Most states have signed up for the initiative, but a handful of states have since repealed Common Core and there are motions in even more states to remove the federal plan.

Common Core is beginning to fall under the cross-hairs of the Republican primaries. Opposition to national standards is rooted in trusting over state governance over federal authority, a general disregard for the Department of Education, and a fear of homogenising American youth.

On the other hand, proponents argue that Common Core will establish a better basis for children to build more advanced knowledge as they grow. More broadly, supporters argue that in the same way as other federal systems, Common Core will prevent poor performing states from  lagging behind by mustering collective, national resources.

Just how significant a role Common Core will play in 2016 is not yet clear; for the time being, it is cropping up mainly in Republican skirmishes and as a symbol of the state-federal power conflict.

What will happen with immigration reform?

Reforming the immigration system of the United States was one of Obama’s primary goals in his second term as President, and one of his sorest defeats.

Progress was almost made in 2013 after the Senate approved a reform bill, but the Republican-led House of Representatives shot the measure down.

In theory, fixing the immigration system would lay down a clearer framework for earned citizenship for undocumented immigrants, make legal immigration more efficient, and consolidate the laws on borders and undocumented workers.

Congress has kicked the can down the street on immigration, with the result that the issue is polarising the Republican primaries. Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigrants part of his core appeal, smearing Mexicans as rapists and murderers. Jeb Bush has warned against the role of ‘anchor babies’: children born in the U.S.A by illegal immigrants, in order to earn citizenship for their offspring.

However, despite his ‘anchor baby’ gaffe Bush is actually a supporter of immigration reform. He believes the issue has damaged the Republican Party, narrowing its demographic appeal and staining its public image. The fact is that within the Republican Party there is a critical divide over how to approach the issue of undocumented workers and Hispanic immigrants.

Some fall into Trump’s camp: build a wall, deport as many as you can find, and keep Central and Latin America out of the U.S. Others agree with Bush, and argue that the Republican Party needs to build a long term policy strategy to cope with migration trends.

On the Democratic side, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton favour reforming the current system, and are likely to pick up where Obama left off.

One way or another, immigration is likely to be a top priority for the next President.

Will there be real criminal justice reform?

Between 1980 and 2008, the number of people incarcerated in America rose from 500,000 to 2.3 million. 58% of that population in 2008 were African American or Hispanic.

Today African Americans are almost six times more likely to be sent to jail than white Americans.

As with much of the western world, after the 1980s the United States was swept by a wave of punitive policy in politics whereby the primary use of prisons was as a weapon against crime and a punishment against criminals, instead of prioritising rehabilitation or civic security. In the U.S. this has fallen on black and hispanic Americans particularly hard.

The recent string of protests and videos showing police brutality has reignited a social problem that has plagued American for decades. Sceptics argue that the prison numbers simply reflect reality; that in poor, urban environments crime is far more rife and that this is where these groups are more likely to live.

Unfortunately, even if this brutal logic was true, it ignores gaping disparities in mandatory minimums for drug offences that mask a racial imbalance, treatment by police officers in some parts of the country, and the long term societal effects of a broken criminal justice system.

Racism in American undermines the values and goals of the nation. Barack Obama broke ground as the first non-white President; his successor will have to return to legal system and the reality on the ground if there is to be further progress.

Stock Up, Stock Down – September

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has grown in significance and size.

Staking a more radical left wing position than Hillary Clinton, Sanders is leading the New Hampshire primary in many polls, and making massive gains in Iowa. These two early states are viewed as being crucial indicators for the rest of the primary season.

Sanders draws in huge crowds, with 28,000 people recently hearing his speech in Portland. Citing a ‘billionaire class’ that is suffocating equality in America, Sanders’ message is certainly finding a receptive audience, and though polling data and experts still consider Hillary Clinton the clear frontrunner, Sanders’ campaign is shaking some feathers in the Democratic Party.

Non Politicians

In the Republican field, there has been a noted backlash against the ‘Washington elite’. This has launched two figures, besides Mr Trump, into the limelight for the Republican presidential primary.

Both Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, and Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, are making gains in Republican polls.

Carson has made his name as a softly spoken populist who wears his religion on his sleeve. He recently claimed he did not believe a Muslim should be President, though they might serve as Senator or Congressman, and frequently refers to his faith in speeches.

Fiorina, on the other hand, has only recently found national attention in the race. Clashing with Donald Trump after the boisterous business mogul made comments about her appearance, Fiorina has emerged as an eloquent and forceful candidate.

Neither Carson or Fiorina have the stink of Washington D.C. around them, and therefore have access to a brand of populism unavailable to other candidates. They argue the system is broken, and only those on the outside can fix it. Of course, Donald Trump also fits into this category, but has been open with his use of lobbying in politics to get his own way.

Of course, it should not go without mention that Carson is the only serious African American candidate in the Republican race, and Fiorina the only woman.

Marco Rubio

Though Rubio has struggled to grab headlines over the past few weeks, he has maintained a clear voice and projected confidence in his public appearances.

The knock on Rubio has always been that he may be too young as a freshman Senator, and that only one son of Florida will progress in 2016: Jeb Bush.

But Marco Rubio must not be overlooked. His youthfulness can certainly work to his advantage, and his ability to connect with Hispanic voters is an electoral goldmine.

Should Trump implode and Bush drift out of favourability, Rubio should be considered a potential frontrunner. His energy puts Jeb Bush to shame, and his appeal will be much wider than Trump.

Donald Trump

The Trump machine rolls on. Despite a series of public gaffes and controversies, Donald Trump remains in first place across polls for the Republican primary.

Weeks have passed and we have little more understanding of Trump’s policy platform than before. Instead, we have seen feuds with fellow Republican nominees, most notably Jeb Bush, and a conveyor belt of offensive comments insulting women, Mexicans and Muslims.

Though his lead has yet to be seriously challenged by Bush or anyone else in the Republican race, cracks are beginning to show. He plainly did not enjoy the CNN debate as much as the first, and is playing a very risky game by toying with the idea of boycotting Fox News appearances.

Trump enjoys incredible popularity with a certain demographic of the Republican Party, but Fox News is the vital channel for accessing the conservative population. If he gives Fox News the cold shoulder, Trump could be cutting his nose off to spite his face.

Frontrunners

The media is prone to overstating the influence of underdogs, and as such, this point is to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have not fared well thus far.

Bush has failed to assuage concerns over his family’s legacy, both in electoral terms and international policy, and remains at loggerheads with a petulant Trump. At some point Jeb Bush needs a ‘moment’: a piece of public showmanship than puts down Trump and shows him as the responsible, clear headed leader of the Republican Party.

Hillary is coping with crowds massing around Bernie Sanders, an email scandal that won’t go away, and lagging polling figures that may be unrelated to either of these two problems. In fact, we’re nearing a stage where Hillary may have to win primaries in states where she will not have a chance in the general election merely to secure the nomination, namely across the south and west.

Undoubtedly, Bush is in the more serious trouble: after all, he’s a long way off leading the polls. Yet the Bush-Clinton showdown is anything but a sure fire thing at this stage.

Martin O’Malley

O’Malley’s campaign feels like it barely started. Though a Democratic debate could go a long way to galvanising his campaign, the former Governor of Maryland has failed to grasp significant fundraising support or lift his polling numbers of 1%.

O’Malley has been unable to garner national attention, partly because of the impressive surge of Bernie Sanders. O’Malley sorely needs a defining moment to break out into the race and carve out space for his candidacy.

The threat of a Biden run only makes matters worse. With the best of intentions, O’Malley may not have long left in this primary season.

Scott Walker (and the rest)

Once considered one of the favourites for the Republican nomination, Governor Scott Walker has pulled out of the race.

After the Trump ascendancy came into full swing, Walker had trouble finding a role in the race. He repeatedly vaunted his victories over the unions of Wisconsin, but he failed to connect on any other issues and so melted away into the crowd. All to often it has been easy to forget that Walker was supposed to be one of the heavy hitters in this primary season.

Instead he seemed to be the guy that cropped up occasionally and spoke about beating unions.

Walker won’t be missed. He added little to the Republican discussion, and exuded a palpable vacuum of charm. His exit does, however, signal a warning shot for other Republican candidates.

In a crowded field only down two contenders (Rick Perry being the second) time is running out for the lacklustre fighters in the Republican race. In particular, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee urgently need to find some form of identity to justify their staying in a race that is so heavily dominated by Trump’s antics.

Rand Paul may also be an early drop out, but with Paul there is at least a substantive reason for him remaining in the race.

Chris Christie seemingly can’t get over the fact that he’s from New Jersey, and the most notable thing about Huckabee is that he tends to make slightly more offensive comments about the Middle East than the other contenders.

This field will be slimmed down, and soon. Out of the major contenders, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee might have to watch out.

The China Conundrum

In the first presidential debate of 2012, Mitt Romney delivered a stinging blow against President Obama and his domestic policies:

“What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it.”

In this one piece of grandstanding Romney deftly combined fears of inefficient big government with a broader anxiety about the power of China, portraying Obama as not only inadequate as a governmental leader, but as accidentally empowering Beijing from federal incompetence.

The Sino-American relationship is fascinating. Over the past century it has undergone profound change, filtering into the internal debates of the United States. China has been perceived as friend, foe, and various shades in-between.

In the nineteenth century China was little mentioned in the United States. Popular American interest in China was largely confined to immigration scares in California. Instead, American focus was on Japan, which was rapidly modernising after the Meiji Restoration, poised to become a powerful economic and military ally in the Far East.

However, the United States and European powers had identified the lucrative economic potential of the immense population within China. China was the ‘sleeping giant’ of Asia: a potentially huge market for goods and investment, but unmistakeably backward and difficult to access.The British had even fought two wars to continue the trade of opium to addicted Chinese customers.

However, access to the China market was by no means ensured, threatened by the Japanese, rival powers, and Chinese Communists.

The ‘loss of China’ in 1949 to Chairman Mao’s Communists ushered in an entirely new period of US-China relations. Ideologically opposed to the U.S., Beijing and Moscow were portrayed as the great enemies of the Cold War, though a brief period of detente under President Nixon in the 1970s sought to drive a wedge between their relationship.

The market-friendly reforms of Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s were welcomed by the West as an indication that communism itself was a flawed and broken system, later validated by the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Since then, however, the China Conundrum has developed.

China: Friend or Foe?

In essence, Washington’s embrace of a reformed China, engaged in international capitalism and receiving American goods, has been replaced with a budding fear over the power of the Middle Kingdom. Yet at the same time, American economic growth is pinned to the Chinese economy.

In the past decade American power has come under increased scrutiny. Political commentators speculate that the unrivalled position of the United States is waning, and that we are entering a period of relative decline whereby American authority will be compromised by new powers.

China is frequently the subject of such speculation, with a massive population of 1.3 billion, the second highest defence spending in the world, and, most importantly, an economy that rivals the size of the U.S.

It is this economic muscle that makes China so intriguing. Countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America are taking in massive amounts of Chinese investment, jumping onto the Beijing bandwagon that had, until only recently, been achieving staggeringly high growth rates of 10% per annum.

The United States is also tied up with Chinese investment and commerce. While Republicans warn of over reliance on Chinese businesses, the American economy is heavily reliant on a healthy, prosperous Chinese market. American businesses seek new opportunities throughout China, and western stock markets are virtually bound to Chinese vitality.

Romney’s quip in 2012 also hinted towards the concern around Chinese credit. Some within the Republican Party believe it to be a fundamental indictment against the U.S. political economy if American lawmakers are compelled to borrow money from Beijing.

The recent stock market plunge in China charged the issue with even greater urgency. Prominent political figures in the U.S. have frequently blamed China for currency manipulation and indulged in a paranoia concerning Chinese investment. Donald Trump, in particular, has emphasised that he would be ‘tough’ on the Chinese in trade negotiations and security matters:

“Oh, would China be in trouble. The poor Chinese”

Yet the drops in the Shanghai Index this summer have also sparked fears of a new global recession.

This is the uncomfortable truth of the current international, often-interdependent financial system. In the years to come, American politicians must find effective language to resolve the China conundrum, and decide whether this Asian economic power is friend, or foe.

Why the Republican Party must modernise

Every democracy undergoes periods of profound transition when political parties realign in accordance with societal, economic, or international causes.

In the United States one of the most monumental shifts was that of the Democratic Party during the mid-twentieth century. Initiated under FDR, the Democrats transformed over the next three decades into the pro-government, civil rights party in contrast to small-government Republican ideology.

The recent recession has highlighted how some countries are in need of a generational shift in one or more of their political parties.

The 2015 election in the United Kingdom has rendered liberal politics in Britain divided, leaderless, and incoherent: the Labour Party are plagued by internal feuds, the Liberal Democrats face a lengthy rebuilding process, and the Scottish National Party continue to endanger one vote in England for each won in Scotland.

In America, it is the conservatives who require a period of introspection. Though performing well in local and state elections, their national platform is on far shakier ground. Here are a few reasons why.

• Ethnic ‘minority’ voters

The most immediate concern for the GOP is it’s shortcomings with black and Hispanic voters. Only one in ten Republican voters in the 2012 national election were non-white, but the white vote is a shrinking share of the electorate.

It will be very difficult to undermine the popularity of the Democratic Party with African Americans, given the institutional confidence of a party with the stronger civil rights record.

The Republicans are far more likely to win over Hispanic voters, arguing that the politics of individualism and hard work can mean success under a Republican administration.

Even so, in 2012 Mitt Romney won just 12% of Hispanics.

There are signs that party leaders are aware of the importance of the Hispanic vote: their field includes Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, all candidates that are able to connect with Hispanic voters in different manners

Unfortunately, the party is also plagued by regressive, ugly attitudes towards immigration, which has the unfortunate consequence of exposing racial prejudice towards America’s continental partners.

The GOP must become a far more racially inclusive party if it is to stand a chance in national elections, particularly as ‘minority’ groups are projected to grow in the coming decades.

• Social issues

President Obama refrained from using the power of the executive to force the issue of same sex marriage during his second term, though he gave public support for the cause in his speeches. The Supreme Court’s decision to legalise gay marriage reflected a popular attitudes to the issue, previously borne out by states electing to legalise same sex matrimonial.

Today, support for gay marriage in America is at a record high.

The Republican Party is behind on this topic, and badly. Our current crop of Republican hopefuls are busy hand-wringing over the Supreme Court’s decision. Being handcuffed to a religiously conservative base means that same sex marriage, which should not be in question in the national forum today, continues to undermine the image of the party.

• Generational shift

Republicans must also take heed of generational changes in America. If it isn’t the case already, millennials will soon be the driving economic age group in America, and pose a considerable challenge for Republican strategists .

The 18-35 age range tends to be more liberal than other age groups. The archetypal millennial is optimistic, aspirational, tech-savvy and socially tolerant.

When translated into political terms, this means young voters are more open minded and compassionate with regard to social issues, and share a sense that society, not sheer individualism, is a positive force.

Republicans need to find the millennial sweet spots, devise new digital ways of speaking to these issues, and establish themselves as forward-thinking party. (See Kristen Soltis Anderson’s book, ‘The Selfie Vote’.)

• Separation anxiety from the Oval Office

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, which is a strong likelihood, and proceeds to win the 2016 election, which is perfectly foreseeable, there is the chance that the Republicans could be staring down another eight years of Democratic leadership from the White House.

Though we are admittedly getting very far ahead of ourselves at this point, a two-term Hillary presidency would result in the Republicans not having touched the Oval Office for sixteen long years.

This only compounds the aforementioned problems concerning generational shift. The Republican Party performs better with older voters, but should the Democrats win the presidency for a further eight years this critical conservative constituency will have changed significantly.

What we know about Trump as a candidate

Donald Trump’s rise has been the subject of much analysis in recent weeks, and to the chagrin of many on either side of the aisle, his popularity shows no sign of diminishing in the wake of the first Republican primary debate.

• He has not always been a Republican

  Trump’s loyalty has come under fire even in these early stages of the primary season. It has not escaped the notice of the national media or his rivals that Trump was once a Democrat, and indeed donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates including the Clintons.

  Trump’s explanation of this is that he was deeply involved in the political landscape of New York, a committed blue-state, and as a result his political allegiance was almost a foregone conclusion. Whether this defence will prevent further attacks on Trump is yet to be seen, and is of particular importance given his tumultuous impact on the Republican Party’s membership at present.

• He damages the Republican debate on immigration

  Trump isn’t a single issue figure, but you would be forgiven for thinking so. His vilifying of hispanics and the Mexican Government have incurred charges of racism, and he continues to flirt with the idea of erecting a gigantic wall across America to keep out Mexicans, as if they were an undead horde. While we’re on the topic of race, let us also remember the ‘birther debate’ surrounding President Obama, championed by Trump and based on zero hard evidence.

  For conservatives this poses serious problems. Higher-ups in the Republican Party no doubt understand the need to win over hispanic voters if they are to have any chance at winning the next presidential election, given the changing demographics of the country, but Trump’s regressive rhetoric is currently drowning out the more progressive minded candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

• He may hold the Republican Party hostage

  During the recent Fox News debate, Trump refused to rule out a third party candidacy. Simply put, if Trump were to run as a third party candidate on his own fortune, the Democrats would have an open goal in 2016.

  Trump would undercut the base of the Republican Party, but never himself stand a chance of seriously challenging the two major parties. By refusing to dispel the possibility of a third party run, Trump may believe he can hold the Republicans to ransom. ‘His way, or the high way’. Or Hillary’s, more realistically.

• He is the quintessential anti-establishment candidate

  Trump’s unabashed, anti-political correct, ‘say what you mean’ style of rhetoric is in some ways similar to the rise of the U.K. Independence Party’s Nigel Farage. Aggressively patriotic, fiercely nativist, Trump and Farage both epitomise a backlash to the governing class that has been smouldering for years.

  However, while Farage argues that British politicians are misguided in their commitment to the European Union, Trump goes one further and argues that America’s leaders are “stupid.” He claims America is being beaten by global enemies simply because the policymakers and leaders in Washington D.C. lack the raw intelligence to solve the current problems of the world. He apparently has the solutions. Whether he will share these solutions with the rest of us is yet to be seen. In the mean time, I encourage you to read Reihan Salam’s article on this phenomenon.

• He is not that smart, but he understands branding

  It has been suggested that Trump is fully cognizant of his role, perfectly in tune with the demands of playing this boastful, bombastic, crass individual. Well, sort of. There is no doubt that Trump understands that his style of ‘tell it how it is’ vitriol connects with a disaffected stratum of American society, but his inability to form coherent arguments suggests he isn’t really up to scratch for the big issues.

  Time and again, Trump finds ways to trip up over his own ‘logic’ during interviews, and some of his more cringe-inducing moments do nothing to broaden or strengthen his populist support.

  The best way of thinking about Trump’s political strategy is probably one of branding. He understands his brand; for him, the policies, the issues, the election are all secondary. His brand is what made him a success in business, he believes it can do the same in politics.