Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 1
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Politics Disadvantage
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 2
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Notes:
What’s here?
Links, internal links, and theory.
The impact arguments will come out in a supplemental file soon.
In the meantime, there is plenty here for you to debate the link and internal link components in your
practice rounds, using the starter set for the impact components of your debates.
Additionally, this file should form the beginnings of the CORE file you can use for politics debates
throughout the season, regardless of the impact scenario.
Where can I find link turns?
For link turns, you should look in the NEG Link sections – Generic, Mechanism, Countries. For many aff
areas and plans there are link arguments in each direction, organized in the link sections of the file.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 3
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Uniqueness
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 4
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Aid Now
Obama not pushing foreign aid now – minimalist strategy now
States News Service, 5/25/13
[May 24th 2013, States News Service, “Expert: US Foreign Policy In ‘Retreat’,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13,
CB]
A former senior advisor to the late Richard Holbrooke, who served as U.S. special envoy to
Afghanistan and Pakistan, says when it comes to foreign policy, the U.S. is in "retreat."
Vali Nasr, who is now dean of Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International
Studies (SAIS), said the Obama administration has concluded that the best way forward for the
United States is to do "less in the world."
On VOA's Press Conference USA, he said President Barack Obama had adopted a "minimalist foreign
policy" strategy, partly due to what Nasr called an "overreach" by former President George W. Bush
in handling the Iraq war.
Mr. Bush was widely criticized for mischaracterizations about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's so-called
weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the war.
"We still are in the shadow of the Bush years," said Nasr, but added, "The world is not used to
America suddenly disappearing."
Nasr said even if the U.S. made "mistakes," it is still considered a pivotal force for stability in many
regions of the world.
Nasr outlines his theory in his new book. "The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat."
His title borrows from a phrase used by former President Bill Clinton, who said "America stands alone as
the world's indispensable nation."
Nasr said the U.S. approach to the Afghanistan conflict is an example of the Obama's administration's
"retreat" on foreign policy.
The U.S. and other foreign combat forces plan to withdraw from the country by the end of 2014.
"Now that we have declared we are leaving, we have very little influence" in the region, said Nasr.
He said Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and Pakistani officials had already begun
"factoring" out the United States in the region and pursuing their own policies.
President Obama defended the planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan during a speech Thursday on
counterterrorism at the National Defense University.
"In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014.
That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al-Qaida targets, but also against forces
that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces," Obama said.
The president said the U.S. would no longer have the same needs for force protection by the end of
2014. He also said progress against al-Qaida elements in the region would reduce a need for drone
strikes.
In spite of his overall criticism of Obama foreign policy, Nasr said the president does have "tremendous
equities" at his disposal.
He said Obama's assets include his "global popularity," his "power of persuasion," and the "goodwill of
the international community."
Nasr said the Obama administration could use the equities to more forcefully engage in the conflicts in
Syria, Iran and Iraq.
Johns Hopkins foreign policy analyst James Mann outlined a similar view in his book, "The Obamians,"
saying Obama's view of the U.S. role in global affairs was "more modest and downbeat" than the
views of his predecessors, former presidents Bush and Clinton.
Mann said the Obama administration has placed greater emphasis on domestic issues.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 5
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Obama shifting focus from foreign aid to foreign trade – Africa Proves
Deseret Morning News 7/2/13
[Decon Merling, July 2nd 2013, “Obama’s African trip emphasizes economic partnership over aid,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
President Barack Obama ended his three-country tour of Africa Tuesday by meeting with former
President George W. Bush to participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the U.S. Embassy in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania, the site of a terrorist bombing in 1998. Obama previously said that the meeting would
be an opportunity to speak with Bush about the HIV/AIDS prevention program PEPFAR that Bush
instituted during his first term in office. On his trip, Obama has responded to critics who say that unlike
Bush, he has not paid enough attention to development and aid in Africa during his time as president. The
PEPFAR program has been very successful in reducing the levels of HIV/AIDS among the people of
South Africa, according to the Washington Post.
Rates of infection have fallen to 30 percent, and nearly 2 million people are on antiretroviral drugs.
But since 2010, the budget for the PEPFAR program has been cut by more than 12 percent. This
has left some advocates disappointed in the Obama administration’s commitment to reducing the
spread of HIV/AIDS on the continent. Knowing that Africa has many challenges, with fighting AIDS
being one of the biggest challenges, we were really expecting President Obama to continue where
President Bush had left off,? Hilary Thulare, country director of the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, told the Washington Post. ‘But it’s been a disappointment. Obama is retreating on AIDS and,
by this, retreating on Africa.’ Obama has responded to these critics by saying the programs are running
more efficiently and that the realities of the current economy and political climate make it more difficult
to fund the program. "Given budget constraints, for us to try to get the kind of money President Bush
was able to get out of a Republican House for massively scaled new foreign aid programs is very
difficult," he told reporters during the trip. Obama’s trip has reflected an African policy that is aimed
more at development and trade than foreign aid, perhaps in response to China’s major investments in the
continent. Africa's economies are growing faster than those of almost any other region of the world. And
the three countries in which Obama stopped ? Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania ? have very different
economies, but according to Quartz they share the distinctive feature that their trade with the U.S. is
growing faster than the rest of Africa. “I think everything we do is designed to make sure that Africa
is not viewed as a dependent, as a charity case, but is instead viewed as a partner,” Obama said
while in Cape Town, South Africa. He reinforced that message later in his trip. "We don't want to just
provide food, we want to increase food self-sufficiency," Obama said at a news conference with
Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete. "So ultimately, the goal here is for Africa to build Africa for
Africans." While in Cape Town, Obama pledged $7 billion to develop an electrical power grid in subSarahan Africa over the next five years. Currently, two-thirds of the population of sub-Saharan Africa
lacks access to electricity, according to the White House. “It’s the lifeline for families to meet their most
basic needs, and it’s the connection that’s needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy,” he
said.
Obama not pushing foreign aid – foreign aid panel postponement proves
Gerstein, Politico White House Reporter, 5/17/13
[Josh, 5-17-13, POLITICO, “Obama Foreign Aid Panel: 2 ½ Years and Still Counting”,
http://www.politico.com//blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/obama-foreign-aid-panel-years-and-still-waiting164264.html, accessed 7-8-13, HG]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 6
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
After two-and-a-half years on the runway, President Barack Obama's Global Development Council
was finally poised for take-off this week—but, no.
The council was slated to meet Friday at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House
complex. But the session was postponed at the last minute. A POLITICO reporter who had asked to
attend the public meeting got an email Thursday morning saying the session was off. Members of the
panel were apparently told earlier in the week.
Obama announced plans to create the council in September 2010 as part of a major "presidential
policy directive" aimed at overhauling the U.S. Government's approach to foreign aid and
development assistance. He did not get around to issuing an executive order officially authorizing
the panel until February 2012.
Then came the wait for nominees to actually serve on the council. Those emerged last December, with
bond investing guru and regular CNBC guest, Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO taking the chairman's job.
Obama named eight others to the panel, though in the meantime Sylvia Burwell Mathews was named to
head the Office of Management and Budget, so she's probably out.
It's unclear why Friday's inaugural session was canceled. It's possible President Barack Obama was to
attend and his schedule had to be rejiggered several times this week to address urgent matters like the
controversies surrounding the Internal Revenue Service and sexual assault problems in the military. The
president spent much of Friday in Baltimore at jobs-related events.
Asked about the delay, a White House official who asked not to be named said: "For scheduling reasons,
we had to postpone the first meeting of the President’s Global Development Council from our original
tentative date of May 17. I expect that we will have a new date soon and will issue an updated notice to
the public. In the meantime, since late February, the GDC has been meeting informally and holding
frequent conference calls. We look forward to scheduling the first official meeting in the near future."
"They had some listening conference calls in March where people offered ideas for what the council
should work on," a person familiar with the council told POLITICO.
The White House did not respond to queries about whether the president had planned to attend or
why the council has taken more than 31 months to get up and running.
The September 2010 White House announcement was vague on what the council's role would be,
saying simply that it would be "comprised of leading members of the philanthropic sector, private
sector, academia, and civil society, to provide high-level input relevant to the work of United States
Government agencies."
More than two years ago, Brookings published a paper offering suggestions for what the panel could do.
Other White House advisory panels have had organizational diffculties and sometimes long hiatuses in
their work. Obama's faith-based council was dormant for a long period. And Obama's Jobs Council went
a year without an official meeting, before being dissolved.
The panels' use of unannounced conference calls and subcommittees to do their work has also raised
concerns among transparency advocates.
Friday's planned session of the Global Development Council was announced to the public in the
Federal Register last week, though without a specific time and without the usual 15-day notice. No
other meetings of the council have been announced.
Foreign aid funding is being cut now
Kadden, Senior Legislative Manager for InterAction, 4-10-13
[Jeremy, 4-10-13, Huffington Post, “The Good, the Bad, and the Budget: What President Obama's Plan
Means for Foreign Aid,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-kadden/obama-budget-foreignaid_b_3056552.html, accessed 7-9-13, MSG]
The $3.77 trillion budget proposal that the Obama Administration rolled out today contains mixed
news for supporters of international aid. His plan includes boosts to some health and development
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 7
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
programs, and overall higher funding levels for foreign assistance than what Congress has put forward.
But his funding recommendation is still a decrease from previous years, and specific cuts he
proposes to humanitarian programs are cause for concern.
Obama proposed $52 billion for the International Affairs Budget, or 150 account, of which $48.2 billion
is in the "base" budget and $3.8 billion is in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This overall
funding level compares favorably to both the House and the Senate budget committee blueprints: The
House and Senate have allocated significantly less for the base budgets, $38.7 billion and $45.6
billion, respectively.
But the administration's recommendation is lower than previous requests and past funding levels.
In FY13, for example, President Obama requested $56.2 billion for the 150 account -- 7 percent
more than he has requested this year. The FY14 request for 150 is also 11 percent lower than the
$58.6 billion that was enacted just four years ago in FY10.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 8
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Venezuelan Aid Now
Venezuelan aid is currently a drop in the bucket
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 25, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
Because of Venezuela’s oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States
has traditionally only provided small amounts of foreign assistance to Venezuela. In recent years,
assistance has focused on counternarcotics and support for democracy programs. Table 3 below
shows U.S. assistance level to Venezuela since FY2006.
From FY2002 to FY2007, Venezuela received small amounts of U.S. assistance under the State
Department’s Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) focusing on counternarcotics cooperation and
judicial reform support. Since FY2008, no counternarcotics assistance has been requested for
Venezuela, although in FY2009, the United States provided $0.5 million in International
Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) assistance.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 9
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Generic Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 10
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Boosters
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 11
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Controversial Policies Spend Political Capital
Controversial policies drain political capital
Burke, University of Vermont political science professor, 9
(John P., Presidential Studies Quarterly 39.3 (Sept 2009), “The Contemporary Presidency: The Obama
Presidential Transition: An Early Assessment”, p574(31). Academic One; accessed 7-15-10)
President Obama signaled his intention to make a clean break from the unpopular Bush presidency
with his executive orders and early policy and budget proposals. At the same time, he also sought to tamp
down public expectations for quick results on the economy. Early--and ambitious--actions were taken, but
as he cautioned in his inaugural address, "the challenges we face are real" and they "will not be met easily
or in a short span of time." His initial political capital seemed high.
But was the right course of action chosen? The decision was made to embrace a broad range of
policy reforms, not just to focus on the economy. Moreover, it was a controversial agenda. His early
efforts to gain bipartisan support in Congress--much like those of his predecessors--seem largely for
naught and forced the administration to rely on narrow partisan majorities. The question that
remains is whether his political capital, both in Congress and with the public, will bring him
legislative--and ultimately policy--success. Good transition planning is propitious, but it offers no
guarantees. Still, without it, political and policy disaster likely awaits. So far, President Obama seems
to reside largely on the positive side of the equation. But what the future might portend remains
another matter.
Unpopular action ensures backlash against the president – politicians are
emboldened when they smell blood in the water
Stolberg, New York Times, 3
(Sheryl Gay, 9-13-3, New York Times, “Democrats Find Some Traction On Capitol Hill”, p. A1, Lexis)
"A presidential speech, instead of boosting support, is followed by a seven-point drop and suddenly
the atmosphere changes," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who follows
Congress. "Republicans, who have been reluctant to get off the reservation, now say, 'Wait just one
minute.' And Democrats have all the more reason to be unified." Ross K. Baker, a political scientist
at Rutgers University, agreed. "Any sign of weakness out of the White House is going to be
perceived by the president's allies in Congress as an opportunity to act a little bit more like free
spirits, and on the part of the opposition to be more aggressive," Professor Baker said. "It's the
blood-in-the-water syndrome."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 12
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Soft on Terrorism Link Magnifier
Democrats and Republicans align on harsh terror response—Obama’s attempts to
soften his approach have faced unprecedented political backlash
Scheuerman, Indiana University political science professor, 7/3/13
(William E. Scheuerman, Ph.D. @ Harvard University and Indiana University graduate director,
Eurozine, “Barack Obama's "war on terror",” http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2013-03-07-scheuermanen.html, Accessed 7/11/13, JC)
A third proposed explanation offers an easy answer to the last question: partisan politics. As anyone
familiar with the increasingly polarized US political scene can readily attest, Republicans have been
hell bent on discrediting Obama by depicting him as "weak on terrorism." The fact that
presidential polls in 2012 suggested that voters had come to trust Obama more on security matters
than the Republicans – who apparently believe that they possess a natural monopoly when it comes to
exploiting anxieties about terrorism – has clearly frustrated and indeed outraged Obama's political
rivals. So one reason he has generally stuck to Bush's script is because he and his advisors have been
forced to ward off a nasty and arguably unprecedented partisan political backlash, hardly unrelated
to the fact that Obama represents a another nail in the coffin of white racial supremacy in a country where
black political rights were only secured with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This third proposed answer downplays the unsettling fact that Obama's early attempts to overhaul
counterterrorism law and policy met with well-nigh universal condemnation. Legislation barring
him from effectively closing Gitmo by prohibiting Obama from transferring detainees to the US
mainland was passed in 2009 when his own party had large majorities in both houses of Congress.
The vote in the Senate was 90-6 against Obama, with only six Democrats supporting his efforts. The
House vote in favour of the propagandistically entitled "Keep the Terrorists Out of America Act"
drew similarly massive bipartisan support. Obama's decision to follow a draconian path cannot solely
or even chiefly be attributed to partisan hostility: there is simply too much evidence that harsh antiterrorist policies now have bipartisan support among political elites and perhaps also within the US
citizenry at large.
Softening terrorism stance costs political capital—Obama’s first term proves
Goldsmith, Harvard Law School professor, 12
[Jack, April 26, 2012, Washington Post “Obama’s weak spots on counterterrorism are open to Romney,”
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-26/opinions/35450785_1_guantanamo-detainees-presidentobama-terrorist-detention, Accessed 7/11/13, ML]
As the general-election campaign comes into focus, conventional wisdom holds that President Obama
is untouchable on national security. But the presidential politics of counterterrorism are less clear
than they may seem. Mitt Romney has advantages; the risk is that he will overplay them.
The nation has suffered no major terror attack during Obama’s presidency. Through bold use of
intelligence, drones and special forces, Obama’s team has killed Osama bin Laden and dozens of
other senior terrorists. Almost as important, Obama’s rhetorical focus on war against al-Qaeda rather
than war against Islamists has damaged al-Qaeda’s brand and has drawn complaints from terrorists
(including bin Laden, according to documents found after his death). The original al-Qaeda organization
seems in disarray. Unsurprisingly, Obama receives high marks from the American people on national
security.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 13
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
These successes have not translated into political capital on counterterrorism issues at home. Obama
failed in his signature pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. His administration had to
back down from its attempt to prosecute in civilian court senior terrorist leaders held at Guantanamo. In
both contexts, large majorities in Congress, with broad popular support, opposed the president’s
policies and enacted laws that forbid closing Guantanamo or trying terrorists held there in civilian
court.
Congress pushed back against Obama partly for political reasons and partly because lawmakers did not
fully trust his judgment in those contexts. Problems began with some clumsy public errors in the
administration’s first year, including the ill-advised attempt to release some detainees into the United
States, a waffling reaction to the failed Christmas Day attack by “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab and the poorly vetted decision to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in
civilian court. These and related controversies spurred Republicans and many Democrats to hurl
charges of insufficient seriousness on counterterrorism — and led to the unprecedented
congressional restrictions under which Obama labors.
Weakening the war on terror is unpopular- the public still feels like there can be an
attack
Baker, NY Times White House correspondent, 13
[Peter, 5-27-13, New York Times, “In Terror Shift, Obama Took a Long Path,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-longpath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
Mr. Obama’s eventual speech, at 59 minutes one of the longest of his presidency other than a State of
the Union address, reflected the process that developed it. Even as he set new standards, a debate broke
out about what they actually meant and what would actually change. For now, officials said,
“signature strikes” targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will
continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Even as he talked about transparency, he never uttered the word “C.I.A.” or acknowledged he was
redefining its role. He made no mention that a drone strike had killed an American teenager in error.
While he pledged again to close the Guantánamo prison, he offered little reason to think he might be more
successful this time.
Yet even the promise of change left some people scathingly critical. “At the end of the day,” said
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, “this is the most tone-deaf president I ever
could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally
every day.”
Softening war on terror unpopular with Republicans
Corn, Mother Jones, 13
[David, 5-23-13, Mother Jones, “Obama's Counterterrorism Speech: A Pivot Point on Drones and
More?,” http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/obama-speech-drones-civil-liberties, accessed 7-1113, MSG]
These moves may not satisfy civil-liberties-minded critics on the right and the left. Obama is not
declaring an end to indefinite detention or announcing the closing of Gitmo—though he is echoing his
State of the Union vow to revive efforts to shut down that prison. Still, these moves would be
unimaginable in the Bush years. Bush and Cheney essentially believed the commander in chief had
unchallenged power during wartime, and the United States, as they saw it, remained at war against
terrorism. Yet here is Obama subjecting the drone program to a more restrictive set of rules—and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 14
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
doing so publicly. This is very un-Cheney-like. (How soon before the ex-veep arises from his
undisclosed location to accuse Obama of placing the nation at risk yet again?)
Despite Obama's embrace of certain Bush-Cheney practices and his robust use of drones, the president
has tried since taking office to shift US foreign policy from a fixation on terrorism. During his first
days in office, he shied away from using the "war on terrorism" phrase. And his national security advisers
have long talked of Obama's desire to reorient US foreign policy toward challenges in the Pacific region.
By handing responsibility for drone strikes to the military, Obama is helping CIA chief John Brennan,
who would like to see his agency move out of the paramilitary business and devote more resources
to its traditional tasks of intelligence gathering and analysis.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 15
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Plan Popular
Only a risk of a link – There’s always opposition to be overcome
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies
professor, 4
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 388)
The fragmentation of public ideological and foreign policy beliefs gives a president great opportunities
but also creates great risks. Unlike those in the 1950s, presidents now are no longer driven to pursue only
an anticommunist containment policy. Yet it is unclear how far a president may go in pursuing any policy
before losing public support. Presidents no longer come to office with automatic majorities behind their
policies. No matter what the president and his advisers believe, a substantial number of Americans – in
the mass public and especially the elite public – disagree, or are open to disagreement, with presidential
policy. Hence, the continual presidential search for, and frustration in obtaining, consensus and policy
legitimation.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 16
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Plan Popular with Public
Public popularity is irrelevant – Tea Party opposition overwhelms
Tomasky, Democracy editor in chief, 11
(Michael Tomasky is a liberal American columnist, journalist and author. He is the editor in chief of
Democracy, a special correspondent for Newsweek / The Daily Beast, a contributing editor for The
American Prospect, and a contributor to The New York Review of Books, 9/19/11, “America Needs Its
Edge Back; Obama is right. We need new roads and schools. But the Tea Partiers will fight him all the
way.” Lexis, THW)
The most pertinent bill in Congress is the one Obama name-checked in his speech: an infrastructure-bank
proposal sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison of Texas. It's designed specifically to try to win bipartisan backing: the bank's initial funding
would be only $10 billion; it would have to become self-sufficient within a few years; it would be
overseen by an independent board; there's even a provision for making sure rural projects don't get
shafted. The public-private nature of the proposal is key, says Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of
Connecticut, lead sponsor of a companion House bill. "If we can really bring clarity to that," she says,
"we have a shot."
Hutchison, who got interested in infrastructure when George H.W. Bush appointed her to a commission,
says she thinks the bill could appeal to Republicans, but she hasn't spent much time talking it up to
her colleagues. "It's a kind of complicated and in-the-weeds type of legislation, so I have not tried to
get a big sponsorship," she says. Kerry holds on to optimism. "The idea is so powerful and such common
sense that my hope is that the better angels will prevail for the good of the country," he says. A member
of the recently formed "supercommittee" tasked with meeting the spending numbers agreed to in the debtceiling deal, Kerry says that the panel has a broad-enough mandate that his bill could be included in any
deficit-cutting agreement.
But that's an awfully tall order. Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the chamber
endorsed the Kerry-Hutchison plan and has backed the infrastructure-bank idea since 1982. Trying to get
Republicans on board, she says, has been daunting. "We've got several who say, 'We believe you, and
we'd like to do this,' but getting people to say publicly that they want to make infrastructure an exception
is a real challenge."
This is all the more maddening because support for such investments among the general public is
broad and deep and crosses ideological boundaries, notes Nicholas Turner, who heads transportation
initiatives for the Rockefeller Foundation. "The bipartisan support was stunning," Turner says. In a poll
the foundation commissioned in February, even 59 percent of Tea Party supporters considered
infrastructure investment to be vital. But as long as Barack Obama is for it, the Tea Partiers in
Washington will fight it.
Public support doesn’t matter – politicians are greedy
Knott, University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and
Development professor, 12
(Jack H., March, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “The President, Congress, and the
Financial Crisis: Ideology and Moral Hazard in Economic Governance,” p. 82, YGS)
How was it possible that senior economic officials in the president’s administration
and prior administrations did not see this crisis developing or pursue policies to avert
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 17
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
it? The basic argument of the article is that the system for governing the market—the
institutions, rules, regulations, and personnel practices that shape the way the market
operates—is central to understanding the development of and failure to anticipate the
financial crisis. In developing this argument, the article focuses on the role of the president
in interactions with the Congress, economic advisors, and the independent regulatory
agencies. Over the course of three decades leading up to the financial crisis, the give and take
of macroeconomic ideas representing different economic interests and professional views
converged into a common set of policy preferences and ideology across political parties, the
houses of Congress, the president, and professional experts. Reinforcing this development
was a powerful political moral hazard —a condition in which public officials and private
interests had strong incentives to take actions mutually beneficial to them but adverse
to the overall economy and the interests of the general public—that led to a decline
in institutional checks and balances in economic regulation. The system of economic
governance thus failed to function as envisioned, and thereby, contributed to the crisis.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 18
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – No Blame
Zero sum nature of politics ensures president is assigned political blame
Fitts, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, 96
(Michael, “The Paradox of Power in the Modern State,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January,
144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827, Lexis, accessed 7-8-09, AB)
To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility about what he says and
does and is led to make increasingly specific statements about who should win and who should lose
on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern
president is supposed to have a position on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the
baseball strike, and the newest EPA regulations, the list is infinite. Perhaps in response to these pressures,
each modern president has made more speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill
Clinton giving three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. In such circumstances,
the president is far less able to exercise agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take
inconsistent positions. The well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize the strategic
implications of politics exacerbates this process by turning issues into zero-sum games.
Presidency is the focal point of politics – president gets the credit or the blame
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies
professor, 4
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 80)
Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents receive credit when things are perceived
as going well and are blamed when things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy
process are incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control. With so many complex
issues and problems to address – the debt problem, the economy, energy, welfare, education, the
environment, foreign policy – this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as presidential
promises and public expectations remain high, the president’s job becomes virtually an impossible
task. Should success occur, given the lack of presidential power, it is probably not by the president’s own
design. Nonetheless, the president – the person perceived to be the leader of the country – will be
rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor). However, if
the president is perceived as unsuccessful – a failure – this results not only in a weakened president
but one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent president or
his heir as presidential nominee.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 19
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Plan Not Perceived
Salience ensures a link – policies that are salient with the public receive
congressional scrutiny
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies
professor, 04
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 309-11)
The third pattern to consider is that Congress is the ultimate political body within the U.S.
government. Members of Congress are “political animals” who are preoccupied with their
institutional status and power, their electoral security, and how they are perceived within and
beyond the Washington beltway. They tend to be obsessed with reelection and are constantly
soliciting funds from private contributors for reelection campaigns. A preoccupation with reelection
also makes them overly sensitive to public perceptions, political support, political trends, and their
public images. If the public and their constituents are interested in an issue and have staked out a
position, members of Congress tend to reflect the dominant public mood. If the public is uninterested,
members of Congress have more freedom of action; yet they are constantly pressured by the president,
executive agencies, congressional colleagues, special interest groups, and their constituents.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 20
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Engagement
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 21
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular - Spending
Latin American foreign aid is unpopular—members of Congress want a reduction
Meyer, Latin American Affairs Analyst, & Sullivan, Latin American Affairs
Specialist, 12
[Peter and Mark, 6-26-12, Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America
and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf, accessed, 7-5-13 MSG]
At this juncture it is uncertain if Congress will approve a stand alone FY2013 foreign aid
appropriations measure, or whether such legislation will be rolled into an omnibus appropriations
measure that combines several appropriations bills. With increasing frequency, Congress has included the
language of appropriations bills that have not first received House or Senate floor action in omnibus
appropriations measures. In these cases, the lack of floor action on the individual bills has reduced the
opportunities for Members to consider and amend regular appropriations measures. For example, for
FY2012 foreign aid appropriations, neither chamber approved individual State Department, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bills before such appropriations were include in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). If similar action is taken for FY2013, it would
continue the pattern of reduced opportunities for Members that are not on the Appropriations
Committees to consider and debate foreign aid legislation, including assistance to Latin America
and the Caribbean.
GOP budget cutting guarantees no Latin American engagement
The Economist 11
(The Economist, 9/3/11, “Partnership, and its obstacles”, http://www.economist.com/node/21528271,
Accessed 7/9/13)
SHORTLY after he took office in 2009, Barack Obama attended a 34-country Summit of the
Americas in Trinidad where he pledged a “new era of partnership” between the two halves of the
region, in place of “stale debates and old ideologies”. Honouring this promise has not been easy: Mr
Obama has had other priorities, both abroad and at home, and events in the region, such as a coup in
Honduras just two months after the Trinidad summit, revived some of those old debates. Nevertheless,
the administration has taken some modest initiatives in Latin America. But now the new
partnership risks falling victim to partisan infighting in Washington. In July the Republican
majority on a committee of the House of Representatives deleted funding for the Organisation of
American States (OAS) from next year's budget. Conservatives dislike the OAS's secretary-general,
José Miguel Insulza, a Chilean social democrat, whom they accuse of complicity with threats to
democracy and media freedom from leftist autocrats, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. The Republicans
have similarly used their powers to hold up the appointment of administration nominees for diplomatic
jobs whom they consider too conciliatory towards Mr Chávez and his friends. At the same time,
American ambassadors have been expelled from, or not accepted in, Venezuela, Ecuador and (in 2008)
Bolivia. There are plenty of criticisms that can be made of the OAS and of its secretary-general. Mr
Insulza's grandstanding over Honduras—he pushed for its immediate suspension from the organisation—
arguably made a negotiated settlement of the conflict between supporters and opponents of the ousted
president, Manuel Zelaya, harder. Weeks earlier Mr Insulza had irritated the Obama administration by
pushing to end the half-century suspension of non-democratic Cuba from the OAS (though it has not
rejoined). On these issues, Mr Insulza reflected majority opinion in Latin America. He has spoken out
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 22
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
against Mr Chávez on several occasions. Indeed, the OAS is still seen by the left in Latin America as a
yanqui poodle. While Latin American clubs have proliferated, the OAS remains the only regional
diplomatic body which includes the United States. And some bits of it, especially the Inter-American
Human-Rights Commission and Court, do valuable work in defence of freedom and democracy. For these
reasons the Democrats who control the Senate may restore the $49m in annual funding the United States
gives to the OAS, which accounts for around 60% of its total budget. But they may do so reluctantly.
“The Republicans sense the administration is in a bind over the OAS,” according to Michael Shifter of
the Inter-American Dialogue, a think-tank. The OAS does not inspire confidence in Washington, but
cutting it would depart from the administration's commitment to multilateralism, he says.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 23
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – GOP
GOP leadership loves economic engagement
Palmer, Reuters Foreign Policy trade correspondent, 12
(Doug, Reuters, 5/8/12, “Boehner urges deeper US engagement in Latin America,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/usa-trade-boehner-idUSL1E8G81HM20120508, Accessed
7/9/13)
The U.S. Congress' top Republican on Tuesday called for deeper U.S economic engagement with
Latin America, but also expressed concern over Iranian influence in the region and the "alarming
willingness" of some governments to abandon international norms. "In both Colombia and Mexico, and
the entire hemisphere, the U.S. must be clear that we will not disengage in the fight for free markets
and free, secure people," U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in remarks prepared
for delivery at the U.S. State Department. "We must be clear that we will be there, with our friends
and partners in the region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free, stable, and
prosperous hemisphere," Boehner said, speaking to the Council of Americas, an organization
representing companies that do business in the region. Boehner is due on Tuesday to receive an award
from the group for his work last year on winning congressional approval of free trade agreements with
Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The pacts were negotiated during the Republican administration of
former President George W. Bush, but President Barack Obama, a Democrat, did not submit the
agreements to Congress until late 2011, after negotiating changes to make them more palatable to
Democrats and securing a commitment for renewal of a worker retraining program known as trade
adjustment assistance. "When the Colombia Free Trade Agreement enters into force (on May 15), it will
be an important moment for the prosperity of our hemisphere. It is equally important that the Panama Free
Trade Agreement be fully implemented in the months ahead," Boehner said, referring to the Obama
administration's ongoing work with Panama to implement that agreement. Boehner said it was
important the United States "keep the momentum going" by negotiating new agreements to open
markets to American exports, and said he was disappointed Obama has not sought legislation
known as "Trade Promotion Authority" which would help the White House do that.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 24
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Mechanism Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 25
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Foreign Aid Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 26
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital
Foreign aid spends political capital
Pflanz, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, 6/30/13
[Mike Pflanz, June 30th 2013, The Christian Science Monitor, “Obama pledges to help double electricity
in sub-Saharan Africa;
President Obama is casting the $7 billion initiative as part of a new US strategy to move the region
forward with development not charity dollars.,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
President Barack Obama is to launch a $7 billion US-funded program to double access to electricity
for people in sub-Saharan Africa, the first new big bucks initiative of his tour of the continent.
The Power Africa plan is expected to be announced during Mr. Obama's visit to Cape Town later Sunday.
It follows announcements of new US funds for food security and leadership mentoring schemes for young
Africans.
Taken together, these all signal a shift in US policy that would leave the world's poorest continent
less "a dependent" or "a charity case" and more "a partner," to use buzzwords that the president has
repeated during his visit. In these times of austerity and sequestration, this new approach to foreign aid
- "the least popular part of the federal budget," Obama concedes - is also cheaper and makes use of
innovative joint public-private cash vehicles.
This refreshed focus drew on "the lessons of Nelson Mandela's life," the president told reporters on Air
Force One Friday, evoking the man Obama called "a personal inspiration for me, and an inspiration for
the world."
Mr. Mandela began his fourth week in the hospital Sunday, struggling to recover from a recurrent lung
infection and still in a "critical but stable" condition. His family, and South African President Jacob
Zuma, say he has improved from the worst days of last week.
Mandela's ailing health has overshadowed Obama's visit to South Africa, but the US president has
regularly spoken of links between his new thinking on how to assist Africa and the example set by the
anti-apartheid icon.
"If we focus on what Africa as a continent can do together and what these countries can do when
they're unified, as opposed to when they're divided by tribe or race or religion, then Africa's rise
will continue," he said. "That's one of the central lessons of what Nelson Mandela accomplished not just
as president, but in the struggle to overcome apartheid and his years in prison."
Help Africans help themselves
These are grand words. In reality, the message is simple: With a more hands-off approach, the US
wants to help African countries help themselves, under umbrella themes of better food, better
businesses, and better governments.
On the first leg of his trip, in Senegal last week, Obama focused on food security, dwelling on ways that
small-scale farmers - "essentially small businesspeople," he said - can grow more crops to earn more
money.
There, and again in South Africa, he applauded his hosts' democratically elected governments and their
institutional reform agendas, and praised Nelson Mandela for stepping down after just one term.
In Tanzania Monday, at a round-table for local CEOs, he will talk trade, and add details of the new
electricity access initiative at a visit to a power station outside Dar es Salaam.
Trade not aid
Together, the aim of the "trade not aid" mantra is a goal familiar to many back home in the US: making
individuals wealthier and businesses more profitable, in societies that respect laws and thus create
confidence for new investors.
It's capitalism 101. It opens new markets for American goods, too.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 27
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
And - unlike George W. Bush's immensely popular but immensely expensive HIV/Aids PEPFAR
programme - Obama's aid plans come with a relatively cheap price tag for US taxpayers.
The president is very aware of the dilemmas he faces in winning approval back home to spend
dollars overseas.
"Our foreign aid budget is around 1 percent of our total federal budget. It's chronically the least
popular part of our federal budget," Obama told reporters. "We've got budget constraints back home,
which means that we've got to come up with new and creative ways to promote development and
deliver aid. Every dollar that we're putting in, we're getting a huge amount of private-sector
dollars.
"If we're working smarter, the amount of good that we can bring about over the next decade is
tremendous."
Increasing foreign aid is unpopular in Congress—contradicts public opinions on
spending in time of severe cuts
POLITICO 2/22/13
(Kevin Robillard, “Poll: Most only want foreign aid cuts,” http://www.politico.com//story/2013/02/pollmost-only-want-foreign-aid-cuts-87948.html, Accessed 7/9/13, JC)
Of 19 options for cutting government spending, only one — reducing foreign aid — was supported
by more than 40 percent of Americans, according to a poll released Friday.
The widespread rejection of most ideas to slash spending in the poll from the Pew Research
Center shows the difficulty of translating a popular GOP message — the federal budget needs to be
shrunk down to size — into political reality. Even on foreign aid, only 48 percent want to cut, compared
with 49 percent who want to increase funding or keep it at the same level.
It also displays the difficulty of replacing the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts scheduled to hit March 1.
While both Republicans and Democrats say they want to avoid the across-the-board slashes in
defense and domestic spending, negotiations are at a standstill and an agreement on replacement cuts
could be elusive.
Decreasing funding for the State Department and cutting unemployment aid are both supported by around
one-third of Americans. Cuts to the Defense Department and to aid for the needy in the U.S. are backed
by about a quarter of Americans. Cuts in all other areas suggested by Pew, including energy, health care,
entitlement programs, infrastructure, scientific research and combating crime, receive even less support.
For most categories, a plurality of Americans want to keep spending at the same level.
Even among Republicans, there’s majority support for only two cuts: foreign aid and unemployment
assistance.
Foreign aid causes a political firestorm
Washington Post 5/13/13
[Editorial Board, May 13th 2013, “Hurdles in reforming U.S. food aid,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
AMONG THE MORE laudable ideas in President Obama's budget for fiscal 2014 is a plan to
modernize and reform the $1.5 billion U.S. food aid program. Mr. Obama would end "monetization,"
the inefficient practice whereby the federal government buys commodities from U.S. farmers and ships
them abroad (on U.S.-flagged vessels) to governments and nongovernmental organizations - which sell
them and use the proceeds for development projects. Monetization raises costs for U.S. taxpayers while
displacing goods produced by farmers overseas.
Alas, Mr. Obama's plan has run into political opposition on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress
from both parties have objected, citing the potential losses for U.S. farmers, ports, ships and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 28
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
merchant seamen. Not surprisingly, these senators and representatives generally hail from port cities or
farm states.
A bit more surprisingly, perhaps, some of them are from our own area: On April 5, Rep. Elijah
Cummings (D-Md.) sent a letter to the president arguing that his plan "would significantly reduce the
amount of U.S. farm products our nation could provide to those in need around the world. It would also
threaten our national security preparedness by reducing the domestic sealift capacity on which our U.S.
military depends." Signatories included Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DD.C.).
Interestingly, two of these legislators told us that they don't oppose Mr. Obama's plan on its merits.
Ms. Norton's spokesman said she "thinks the president's policy is correct," but signed the letter as
a courtesy to Mr. Cummings and because of a collateral concern that food stamps might be
affected. Mr. Connolly, too, said that Mr. Obama's plan would make sense in "an ideal world," but
that political realities are such that foreign aid cannot get funding unless domestic U.S.
constituencies also benefit.
Mr. Connolly's rationale is a familiar one - indeed, it was part of the Eisenhower administration's
original argument for food aid. But poor people abroad have been hostage to interest-group politics
in the U.S. long enough. The time has come for some fresh thinking of the sort Rajiv Shah, Mr.
Obama's foreign aid administrator, is trying to introduce.
Among the many points Mr. Shah makes are that food aid shipments have declined by 64 percent in the
last decade anyway, so it's a bit late for farmers and merchant mariners to be claiming that they can't
survive without them. In fact, farmers are prospering as never before, thanks in part to commercial
exports.
As for the merchant marine, the number of U.S.-flagged ships has been in steady decline for decades, yet
the U.S. military managed to prosecute several wars overseas. If we need sealift for national security, it
would be more transparent to subsidize that directly.
Perhaps it's true that funding for foreign aid, always politically tenuous, has depended on greasing
interest groups. But it's also true that foreign aid depends on persuading taxpayers in general that
their funds are being well spent. And there are more taxpayers than special interests.
New aid allocations will cost political capital
Merling, Deseret Morning News, 7-2-13
[Devon, “Obama’s African trip emphasizes economic partnership over aid”, Lexis, Accessed 7-8-13,
AFB]
Rates of infection have fallen to 30 percent, and nearly 2 million people are on antiretroviral drugs. But
since 2010, the budget for the PEPFAR program has been cut by more than 12 percent. This has left some
advocates disappointed in the Obama administration’s commitment to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS
on the continent. ?Knowing that Africa has many challenges, with fighting AIDS being one of the biggest
challenges, we were really expecting President Obama to continue where President Bush had left off,?
Hilary Thulare, country director of the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, told the Washington Post.
‘But it’s been a disappointment. Obama is retreating on AIDS and, by this, retreating on Africa.’ Obama
has responded to these critics by saying the programs are running more efficiently and that the
realities of the current economy and political climate make it more difficult to fund the program.
"Given budget constraints, for us to try to get the kind of money President Bush was able to get out
of a Republican House for massively scaled new foreign aid programs is very difficult," he told
reporters during the trip. Obama’s trip has reflected an African policy that is aimed more at
development and trade than foreign aid, perhaps in response to China’s major investments in the
continent. Africa's economies are growing faster than those of almost any other region of the world. And
the three countries in which Obama stopped ? Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania ? have very different
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 29
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
economies, but according to Quartz they share the distinctive feature that their trade with the U.S. is
growing faster than the rest of Africa. “I think everything we do is designed to make sure that Africa is
not viewed as a dependent, as a charity case, but is instead viewed as a partner,” Obama said while in
Cape Town, South Africa. He reinforced that message later in his trip. "We don't want to just provide
food, we want to increase food self-sufficiency," Obama said at a news conference with Tanzanian
President Jakaya Kikwete. "So ultimately, the goal here is for Africa to build Africa for Africans." While
in Cape Town, Obama pledged $7 billion to develop an electrical power grid in sub-Sarahan Africa over
the next five years. Currently, two-thirds of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lacks access to
electricity, according to the White House. “It’s the lifeline for families to meet their most basic needs, and
it’s the connection that’s needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy,” he said.
Foreign aid faces an uphill battle – aid budgets cut
Mazzetti, New York Times Pulitzer winner, and Landler, New York Times White
House Correspondent, 5/27/13
[Mark Mazzetti and Mark Landler, May 27th 2013, The International Herald Tribune, “In Obama's
ambitions, hurdles and inconsistencies; Risks are posed by giving diplomacy priority over military and
intelligence,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
President Barack Obama, in one of his most significant speeches since taking office, has not simply
declared an end to the post-9/11 era. He has also offered a vision of the American role in the world that
he hopes could be one of his lasting legacies.
It is an ambitious vision - one that eschews a muscle-bound foreign policy, dominated by the
military and intelligence services, in favor of energetic diplomacy, foreign aid and a more measured
response to terrorism. But it is fraught with risks, and hostage to forces that are often out of a
president's control.
From the grinding civil war in Syria and the extremist threat in Yemen to the toxic American relationship
with Pakistan and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan with no clear sense of what
comes afterward, Mr. Obama's goal of taking the United States off ''perpetual war footing'' faces a
multitude of hurdles.
One of the more daunting is a sprawling wartime bureaucracy that, after nearly a dozen years, has
amassed great influence and has powerful supporters on Capitol Hill. It will be difficult to roll back what
has been a gradual militarization of U.S. foreign policy, even in an era of Pentagon budget cuts.
Nor can Mr. Obama escape his own role in putting the United States on a war footing. He came into
office pledging to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but within a year had ordered 30,000
more troops to Afghanistan and oversaw a significant expansion of the Bush administration's use of
clandestine drone strikes.
''We have no illusions that there are not challenges,'' said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security
adviser who wrote Mr. Obama's Thursday address. ''But we should not be defined by our role in terrorism,
by the airstrikes we order or the people we put in prison.''
Of all these threats, Mr. Rhodes said the White House was most worried about a surge of extremism
following the Arab Spring. And yet the bloodiest of those conflicts, in Syria, reveals the limits of Mr.
Obama's policy. He has steered clear of U.S. involvement, despite signs that extremist groups with ties to
Al Qaeda are making gains.
Precisely because of the challenges across the Middle East, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina
Republican and frequent critic of the administration, said Sunday that Mr. Obama's tone had seemed
dangerously acquiescent.
''At a time we need resolve the most, we're sounding retreat; our enemies are emboldened all over the
planet,'' he said on ''Fox News Sunday.'' ''This speech did not help.''
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 30
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Amid this uncertainty, it was telling that neither the president in his speech nor his aides afterward made
firm declarations about where the United States could carry out targeted killings, or about whether drone
strikes would be carried out by the Pentagon or the C.I.A.
Administration officials spoke of a ''preference'' to use the military to conduct lethal operations, but said
that Mr. Obama's hands would not be tied and that he reserved the right to use the C.I.A. for covert drone
strikes in far-off countries when, as a White House fact sheet put it, ''doing so is both lawful and
necessary to protect the United States or its allies.''
At the same time, Mr. Obama put renewed emphasis on diplomacy and foreign aid, saying these were
important ways to address ''the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism.''
As if to underline his point, John Kerry has proved to be a surprisingly activist secretary of state, plunging
into shuttle diplomacy between the Israelis and the Palestinians and becoming the administration's point
man for dealing with the strife in Syria.
It is also true, though, that the administration is pushing a diplomatic solution in Syria because there is so
little public support for military engagement and because all other available options carry risks.
''The real question over time may be whether we can mobilize others to join with us to deal with these
threats,'' said Dennis B. Ross, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East. ''Look at Syria:
would others be prepared to do more that could be effective if they saw that we were prepared to do
more?''
Another problem with this new focus is that the administration cut the budget of the State
Department and the United States Agency for International Development by 6 percent, to $47.78
billion, from $51 billion in the current year, reflecting the broader budget squeeze.
The impact of those cuts is even greater since there are increases of $1.5 billion for additional
security personnel and upgrades to embassies and other diplomatic buildings.
Massive pressure to cut foreign aid
Millennium Challenge Corporation, 5/1/13
[5-1-13, States News Service, “Bipartisan Support for Foreign Assistance at MCC Forum on Global
Development”, Lexis, accessed 7-9-13, HG]
A former Secretary of State, a top Obama administration official and a long-serving U.S. senator
each voiced strong support for foreign assistance during the Millennium Challenge Corporations
Forum on Global Development on April 29.
The Forum, held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, provided
an opportunity for some of international developments top leaders and practitioners to meet and exchange
ideas. MCC also presented three awards to individuals and organizations using the power of partnerships
to make an impact in the lives of the worlds poor.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provided the events keynote address and discussed foreign
assistance during a conversation with master of ceremonies Frank Sesno. Michael Froman, assistant to
President Barack Obama and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs,
addressed the role of the private sector in international development. And Senator Patrick Leahy, the
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on State Department
and Foreign Operations, spoke about the need for sustained funding for foreign aid.
Rice, who served as Secretary of State and chair of MCCs Board of Directors from 2005 to 2009,
emphasized that U.S. Government foreign assistance has lifted people up from all over the world for
many, many decades.
Rice acknowledged a pressure to cut foreign assistance funding and focus spending at home but
believes the U.S. Governments spending on foreign aid which is less than 1 percent of the federal
budget is money well spent.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 31
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
I would say to the American people, yes, we need to deal with our problems here at home. But just
look at what's going on around the world. Just look at all the preventable disease. Just look at all of
the children who could be saved. You'll want to have American foreign assistance be a part of that
story.
During Rices tenure as chair of MCCs Board, the agency signed 16 compacts worth more than $6.3
billion and 20 Threshold Programs totaling almost $439 million. She called MCC A story of shared
success.
I've always thought that American foreign policy indeed, America is at its best in the world when
our interests and our values come together. And I can think of no better example of our interests
and our values coming together than MCC.
Froman who is responsible for coordinating policy on international trade, financial, energy security,
climate change, development, and democracy issues discussed the changing role of the U.S. Government
in foreign assistance.
From the planning of development programs, to their coordination with other donors, to their
implementation, and through the data-driven evaluation of their effectiveness, we recognize we
have to do more with less, he said. But we also recognize we have to do better from beginning to
end.
Froman called MCC a critical input to the administration's development policy since the first days of the
administration.
MCC's experience has been enormously helpful as we've worked to make our assistance more effective,
including by leveraging public sector reform and private sector capital flows, he said. And one of the
lessons of the MCC is the power of example and the importance of incentives.
Leahy, who is the most senior member of the Appropriations and Agriculture committees, noted
that, What we have to do is focus on what we get for the money not just spending more money, but what
do we get for it. I commend MCC for working on that. We have to make sure we're getting the direct
feedback from the intended beneficiaries.
I have to fight every year in the Senate and the Congress to get money for foreign aid , he said. It's
not the most popular thing to ask for , although it's one of the most important things in a great country
like ours, and I'll keep fighting for it.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 32
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Rand Paul
Plan will spark a backlash by Senator Paul – and he has clout
Burns, Politico, 12
[Alexander Burns, Staff writer, October 13th 2012, Politico, “Rand Paul seizes the moment,”
http://www.politico.com//blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/rand-paul-seizes-the-moment-138375.html,
Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
For Rand Paul, campaign season is just getting started.
Less than a month before the end of the 2012 election, the first-term Kentucky senator is embarking
on his most vigorous effort yet to expand his national profile.
Over the past week, Paul used his political committee — RAND PAC — to launch television ads in
the Ohio, West Virginia and Florida Senate races, hammering incumbent Democrats on foreign aid .
That offensive will intensify in the coming weeks, Paul advisers said, with an additional two or three
Senate races on the Republican’s target list.
When Paul’s leadership PAC reports its fundraising haul later this month, a Paul strategist said RAND
PAC will have more than $1 million in the bank. Paul intends to put that hefty sum to active use:
the TV ads he has begun to air bolster congressional efforts to block foreign aid to Libya, Egypt
and Pakistan. Paul describes the measure as a response to attacks on American diplomatic outposts in
North Africa and Pakistan’s imprisonment of a doctor who helped the U.S. locate Osama bin Laden.
Paul has ramped up his political travel, too, making trips across Kentucky’s northern border to
stump for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in Ohio. Later this month, he’s slated to appear in New
Hampshire as a Romney-Ryan surrogate — Paul’s second visit in recent months to an early presidential
primary state, after a spring trip to Iowa where Paul visited with top evangelical organizers.
If all that sounds like the maneuvering of a man who hopes to run for president in 2016 or beyond, Paul
and his advisers don’t rule out that possibility. But, they say, Paul’s increased national presence — and
especially the TV campaign from his PAC — have more to do with his passionate opposition to
gratuitous overseas spending than any long-term political goal.
“It’s about the issue. I mean, what happens to me – who knows?” Paul told POLITICO at Thursday
night’s vice presidential debate here in Danville. “We have limited resources as a country and I’m not
for sending it to countries that are burning our flag, disrespecting us, imprisoning a doctor who
helped us get Bin Laden. I say if you want to be our ally, act like it.”
Paul advisers say the ad campaign springs from the senator's desire to hold wrongheaded
colleagues accountable and change the GOP's outlook on foreign policy, more than any electoral
calculus. In any case, Paul's activities are making him the Republican Party's most prominent
advocate for military and spending restraint overseas, at a moment when the national mood has
moved in that direction. Whatever happens in the presidential race, all this will leave Paul in a unique
and potent position for his activities in the next Congress and beyond.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 33
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Public
Americans want less money spent on foreign aid – they massively overestimate how
much is spent on foreign aid
World Public Opinion Org, 10
[11-29-10, World Public Opinion, “American Public Vastly Overestimates Amount of U.S. Foreign Aid”,
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/670.php, accessed 7-9-13, HG]
As debates about how to deal with the budget deficit have heated up in recent weeks, a new
WorldPublicOpinion.org/Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans continue to vastly
overestimate the amount of the federal budget that is devoted to foreign aid.
(Image: US Navy)
Asked to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid the median estimate
is 25 percent . Asked how much they thought would be an "appropriate" percentage the
median response is 10 percent .
In fact just 1 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid . Even if one only includes the
discretionary part of the federal budget, foreign aid represents only 2.6 percent.
This set of questions has been asked repeatedly since the Program on International Policy
Attitudes (PIPA) first asked them in 1995, and it was subsequently asked by other organizations
as well. Over the years the most common median estimate was that foreign aid represented 20
percent of the budget, most recently in a 2004 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Thus the most recent number represents an increase of 5 points in the median estimate. Steven
Kull, director of PIPA comments, "This increase may be due to Americans hearing more
about aid efforts occurring in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti over the last few years. There
have been some increases in foreign aid under both Presidents Bush and Obama, but, of
course, nowhere near to the perceived level."
The median amount proposed as appropriate has consistently been 10 percent in other polls
including the 2004 Chicago Council poll.
In the current poll estimates of foreign aid vary by education, growing more accurate with higher
levels of education. Among those with less than a high school education the median estimate was
that foreign aid represented an extraordinary 45 percent of the budget, those with only a high
school diploma 25 percent, those with some college at 20 percent. However, even those with a
college degree or higher still overestimate by a wide margin, with a median estimate of 15
percent of the budget.
Steven Kull comments, "It is quite extraordinary that this extreme overestimation has
persisted for so many years, even among those with higher education."
Overall, the percentage of respondents who estimated anywhere near the correct amount
was quite small. Only 19 percent estimate that foreign aid is 5 percent or less of the budget.
On the question of how much of the budget should go to foreign aid only 42 percent say that
the amount it should be is 5 percent of the budget or less and only 20 percent say that it
should be 1 percent or less. The percentage saying that foreign aid should be eliminated is
quite small--just 10 percent of respondents.
Those who identify themselves as Republican are somewhat lower in their estimates than
Democrats. But Republicans still overestimate the amount with a median estimate of 20
percent, while Democrats have a median estimate of 25 percent and Independents 25
percent.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 34
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Attitudes about what percentage of the budget should go to foreign aid tend to track the amount
estimated. The median preferred level is 5 percent for Republicans, and 10 percent for Democrats
and Republicans.
Foreign aid massively overestimated by the public
Morales, staff writer for Devex, 2/26/13
[John, 2-26-13, Devex, “Foreign Aid Cuts America’s Top Priority”,
https://www.devex.com/en/news/poll-foreign-aid-cut-tops-america-s-priority/80388, accessed 7-9-13,
HG]
What could such a deal mean? A mix of cuts and revenue generation through taxes, perhaps.
In that case, it’s either slice the big-ticket items like defense or cut the small ones like foreign aid.
The hammer, however, would likely fall on priorities that would not cost big political fortunes.
Why foreign assistance tends to appear on so many shortlists of cuts may have something to do with
America’s perception about it. Americans believed 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign
aid, according to a 2010 survey by World Public Opinion.
Yet the United States’ whole foreign policy is just $1 for every $100 spent on other sectors, U.S.
officials have noted.
In his first major foreign policy speech delivered last week, Secretary of State John Kerry
argued: “Over 1 percent, a little bit more, funds all of our civilian and foreign affairs efforts
— every embassy, every program that saves a child from dirty drinking water, or from AIDS,
or reaches out to build a village, and bring America’s values.”
It’s particularly hard to make a case for increased aid spending when most of Americans want
other things to be prioritized in times of spending cuts. Based on Pew’s latest survey, about 70
percent of citizens would favor increasing military defense spending or keep it at the current level
as against the 49 percent of citizens who want to increase or keep aid spending as it is.
If U.S. lawmakers can’t agree on a plan to avert this sequestration just in time, this could mean
$200 million less for humanitarian assistance, $400 million for global health, $70 million for
food aid, and $70 million for USAID’s operating costs, as per estimates by the State Department.
U.S. is unaware of foreign policy – lack of knowledge about foreign spending proves
Paque, U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, 10
[Joel, 12-3-10, U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, “Americans Massively Overestimate U.S. Foreign
Assistance”, http://www.usglc.org/2010/12/03/americans-vastly-overestimate-u-s-foreign-assistance/,
accessed 7-10-13, HG]
A new poll shows Americans continue to vastly overestimate the amount of foreign assistance given
by the United States. Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland, the November poll finds the median estimate of the percentage of the federal
budget most Americans think is spent on foreign aid is 25%. When you ask Americans how much
would be appropriate to spend on foreign assistance, the median response is 10%. In fact, only a
little over 1% of the federal budget currently goes to foreign assistance.
These findings echo previous surveys going back over a decade, but this recent survey saw the largest yet
estimate of foreign assistance, up from 20% in 2004. Steven Kull, PIPA director, attributes this increase
since 2004 to public awareness over aid expenditures in Afghanistan and Haiti. He also noted that,
although assistance levels have increased since 9/11, the public still doesn’t have an accurate perception
of aid spending, saying, “There have been some increases in foreign aid under both Presidents Bush and
Obama, but, of course, nowhere near to the perceived level.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 35
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The overestimation of our foreign assistance holds true across the political spectrum. Those who
identified as Republicans overestimated our foreign assistance somewhat less, with the mean response of
20%, while the mean response from those who identified as Democrats and Independents was 25%. When
asked how much of the budget should go to foreign aid, the mean for Republicans was 5%, whereas for
Democrats and Independents it was 10%.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 36
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Bipartisan
Foreign aid and assistance is popular with both Democrats and Republicans –
perceive it stimulates U.S. growth, expands relations, and expands U.S. development
worldwide
Rep. Crenshaw, Florida Republican & Rep. Smith, Washington Democrat, 6/10/13
[Ander and Adam, 6-10-13, POLITICO, “The Vital Role of Foreign Assistance”,
http://www.politico.com//story/2013/06/the-vital-role-offoreign-assistance-92516.html, accessed 7-9-13,
HG]
Foreign assistance programs are important for spurring our economy, too. More than half of our
exports go to the developing world now and that number is growing. The key to expanding our
economy and creating jobs here at home lies beyond our shores, and reaching the 95 percent of the
world’s consumers who live outside the U.S. requires investment in these rapidly growing markets.
Careful attention must be paid to how we spend every taxpayer dollar. As the co-chairs of the
Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance, our goal is to help ensure the global investments
we make bring the best return possible to America.
Significant strides have been made over the past decade to make these programs more effective, and
a new “Report on Reports” released by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition details areas of consensus on
how we can do even better.
Just as military leaders have called for, we need to strengthen the capacity of our civilian agencies. Both
Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have taken steps to increase the footprint and
quality of development experts and diplomats around the globe, but we are still understaffed and
underfunded with the challenges we face around the globe.
Given our fiscal environment, we have to focus on real results in every federal program. Enhanced
evaluation and accountability in our development efforts are being implemented. As an example, the
Foreign Assistance Dashboard allows taxpayers to see where our dollars are being spent. More focus on
data-driven innovations like this are necessary to ensure we get the best bang for the U.S. buck.
The private sector now accounts for more than 80 percent of capital flows to the developing world,
playing a more critical role than ever. Working together, public-private partnerships are changing the
way we do foreign assistance, and we need more of them. Our development and diplomatic
programs create the enabling environments with host governments for U.S. businesses and nongovernmental organizations to operate successfully. That’s a role only our development experts and
diplomats can play, which is why it is so essential for us to maintain sufficient resources for these
programs around the globe.
Efforts to better coordinate the many foreign assistance programs across our government are also
needed. Streamlining decisions and improving coordination across agencies would enhance the
effectiveness of our programs.
Finally, we have to focus and prioritize our efforts. We cannot do it all, so we must concentrate on what
we do well and where we can have the greatest effect. In addition to ensuring the integrity of our
development and diplomacy programs from further deep cuts, Congress should ensure that these
programs are focused where they have the most impact.
It is gratifying to see the initiatives and pioneering efforts on accountability and transparency in our
foreign assistance programs. This is good government. We look forward to continuing to work with our
colleagues in Congress to expand and strengthen these efforts even further. There is agreement across
the political spectrum that foreign assistance is an essential part of America’s leadership.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 37
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 38
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Public
Foreign aid is growing in popularity
Sullivan, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-2-13
[Kevin, 2-2-13, The Borgen Project, “Public Opinion Favors Increased Foreign Aid,”
http://borgenproject.org/public-opinion-favors-increased-foreign-aid/, accessed 7-8-13, MSG]
According to the Council on Foreign Relations’ website Americans, in general, want our country to
supply more non-defense related international aid. A study of the 2011 federal budget and public
opinion found that defense and military spending made up about 20 percent of that year’s budget while
non-defense related aid was less than one percent. The study noted that the amount of humanitarian,
non-military aid has been increasing over the last decade but has yet to reach even one percent.
One proposal to build more support for increased international aid is to fight misconceptions about how
foreign aid is distributed and to educate the public about how non-defense related spending helps U.S.
economic interest abroad, but the author of the study worried that such a money-driven portrayal of
international aid programs may not attract positive attention from voters who support increased
international aid from a strictly altruistic stance.
One way or another, support has seemed to be slowly building over the last ten years and that’s a
positive sign. While that trend in opinion is encouraging it does seem to work in competition with
the large amount of funding running toward military spending. Even over the course of the last ten
years in which we have executed one of the largest military pull-outs in history defense-related
spending is still the Goliath to the David that is humanitarian aid, but perhaps this trend in public
opinion and vocal supporters could help turn the tide.
Increased foreign aid is popular despite misunderstanding of foreign aid budget –
67% support
Morales, staff writer for Devex, 2/26/13
[John, 2-26-13, Devex, “Foreign Aid Cuts America’s Top Priority”,
https://www.devex.com/en/news/poll-foreign-aid-cut-tops-america-s-priority/80388, accessed 7-9-13,
HG]
If U.S. citizens had their way, foreign aid may be the first to be reduced in times of need, a new poll
suggests as the dreaded sequester deadline approaches.
While most Americans don’t support spending cuts, about 48 in 100 think aid to the world’s needy should
be reduced, Pew Research Center’s latest survey shows.
The survey, released Feb. 22, gave 19 options for cutting government spending, and foreign aid was
chosen by 70 in 100 Republicans and 25 in 100 Democrats.
Even then, Pew’s polling results can be read in another way: Half of Americans also want to increase
foreign aid or keep it at the current level.
While Pew’s survey speaks of a divided nation on foreign aid spending, a survey released last month by
the Better World Campaign painted a different picture of America’s sentiment on development assistance.
About 67 in 100 Americans across the political spectrum support keeping or increasing the portion
of the U.S. federal budget on global health aid. About 80 percent of Americans believed it’s in
“America’s best interest to continue to actively support the United Nations.”
While these polls, and similar ones, may be inconclusive, they may still find prominence in the coming
days as lobbying and backroom bartering intensifies to find a deficit reduction deal that avoids the
dreaded sequestration, which would usher in $85 billion across-the-board cuts.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 39
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
What could such a deal mean? A mix of cuts and revenue generation through taxes, perhaps. In that case,
it’s either slice the big-ticket items like defense or cut the small ones like foreign aid.
The hammer, however, would likely fall on priorities that would not cost big political fortunes.
Why foreign assistance tends to appear on so many shortlists of cuts may have something to do with
America’s perception about it. Americans believed 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign
aid, according to a 2010 survey by World Public Opinion.
Yet the United States’ whole foreign policy is just $1 for every $100 spent on other sectors, U.S.
officials have noted.
In his first major foreign policy speech delivered last week, Secretary of State John Kerry argued: “Over 1
percent, a little bit more, funds all of our civilian and foreign affairs efforts — every embassy, every
program that saves a child from dirty drinking water, or from AIDS, or reaches out to build a village, and
bring America’s values.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 40
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Spin
Obama will spin the plan favorable – defense, economics, diseases, stability
National Jewish Democratic Council press release, 5/28/13
[May 28th 2013, US Official News, “Washington: President Obama Right to Emphasize Foreign Aid,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
During his speech yesterday at the National Defense University, President Obama spoke candidly about
his support for foreign aid. He stated:
I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures - even though it amounts to less
than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is
fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism.
Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance
might ultimately prevent.
In a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, it is great to see that President Obama understands
foreign aid’s importance. As President Obama indicated, foreign aid is a “tiny fraction of what we spend
fighting wars,” and yet surprisingly, it serves as our country’s first line of defense. Because of the aid
our country provides, we are able to safely and securely promote American interests abroad without
putting any troops on the ground.
Our assistance helps developing nations build stronger economies and plays a part in securing a
robust global market. Equally as important, our aid programs fight diseases, provide natural
disaster relief and promote stability to previously unstable governments.
All too often, American citizens - including our elected officials - seemingly forget these truths .
There are countless of in-plain-sight instances where foreign aid has been mutually beneficial to the U.S.
and a recipient. Take Israel for example. Because of increased U.S. security assistance to Israel under the
Obama administration, our two countries have been able to fund some of the most advanced weapons
defense systems in the world including the Arrow, David’s Sling and Iron Dome. This was on full display
last fall during Pillar of Defense when the Iron Dome allowed the time to properly negotiate a ceasefire
with Hamas.
Foreign aid is a seriously important tool, and President Obama made that evident in yesterday’s
speech. Hopefully, the message was also clear to both policymakers and the American public.
Foreign aid needs to continue to be a centerpiece of our national security.
Obama will spin the plan – Africa proves
Pickler, Associated Press 6/28/13
[Nedra Pickler, Staff writer, June 28th 2013, Associated Press Online, “WHITE HOUSE NOTEBOOK:
Obama pitches aid in Africa,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
President Barack Obama is pitching U.S. foreign aid and, by extension, an image of a new Africa -not one of malnourished children with hollow eyes and distended tummies, but one of smiles and plump
babies.
Obama on Friday toured a series of booths set up behind his Dakar hotel that were designed to showcase
Senegalese agriculture with a focus on nutrition and fortified foods.
At one of the booths, a large poster featured a healthy-looking baby in the arms of a smiling mother.
"That's a big, fat and happy kid," Obama said.
At another, he spoke to a farmer who displayed a sweet potato fortified with beta-carotene.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 41
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
"This is not just your average sweet potato," Obama said. "This is your super-duper sweet potato."
The message was in part meant for an audience back home, where foreign aid in an age of budget
squeezes is often first in line for cutbacks. The food programs get help from Feed the Future, a
public private partnership initiated during Obama's first term that the administration says has
helped seven million small farmers in 19 developing nations, including 7,000 in Senegal.
"When people ask what is happening to their taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, I want people to know that
this money is not being wasted," Obama said. "It's helping feed families, it's helping people to
become more self-sufficient, and it's creating new markets for U.S. companies. It's a win-win
situation."
Speaking to reporters later aboard Air Force One, Obama said the aid serves as an economic
development tool by increasing farmer income that in turn builds a new middle class that can
support local manufacturing.
"Our foreign aid budget is around 1 percent of our total federal budget. It's chronically the least popular
part of our federal budget," he said while en route to Johannesburg. "But if you look at the bang for the
buck that we're getting when it's done right, when it's well designed, and when it's scaled at the
local level with input from local folks, it can really make a huge difference."
During the agriculture tour in Dakar, he needled U.S. reporters traveling with him, whose questions have
focused on recent Supreme Court decisions back home and on the whereabouts of secrets-leaker Edward
Snowden.
"I know that millet and maize and fertilizer doesn't always make for sexy copy," he said. He asked a
farmer at a display booth to show reporters some of his rice. "These are some city people," he said of the
reporters. Then teased them, as if imparting a lesson: "This is where rice comes from."
As for the rice, he said he'd like to see it served at the White House. "We'll have the White House chef
whip it up," he said.
Obama will spin the plan as anti-terrorism
CBS News 5/23/13
[May 23rd 2013, CBS News, “Obama: America at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism,” Lexis, Accessed
7/8/13, CB]
In a sweeping speech addressing the nation's counterterrorism strategy, President Obama on Thursday
unveiled new restrictions on the nation's controversial targeted killing policy, and - despite repeated
interruptions from a heckler -- officially outlined plans to restart transfers of Guantanamo Bay prisoners
to third countries.
During an hour-long speech at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., Mr. Obama outlined
his strategy for addressing a changing global climate, and stressed the need to understand and address the
shifting threats facing the nation.
Unlike in years past, Mr. Obama argued, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is no
longer the greatest terrorist risk confronting the U.S. Instead, he said, the U.S. has seen the
emergence of threats from localized al Qaeda affiliates around the world, as well as from
"radicalized individuals here in the United States."
Attorney General Holder: Drones killed 4 Americans since 2009[1] Obama: Guantanamo must close[2]
"America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated
individuals - often U.S. citizens or legal residents - can do enormous damage, particularly when
inspired by larger notions of violent jihad," Mr. Obama said. "Homegrown extremists. This is the
future of terrorism."
And force, he argued, is not the only solution to combating these dangers. Mr. Obama argued that
the U.S. must also support other countries in their pursuit of democracy, work to promote peace
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 42
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
abroad, and supply the necessary foreign aid to help countries modernize their economies, improve
their education, and encourage business growth.
Foreign aid is spun as smart power
Las Vegas Review, 5/16/13
[Chris Sieroty, Staff writer, May 16th 2013, “Foreign aid, trade crucial,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
Influential government and business leaders, concerned that the foreign aid budget could be
reduced as Congress deals with fallout from sequester and the possibility of more budget cuts, say
there are benefits from using "smart power."
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., and Steven
Hill, executive director of the Governor's Office of Economic Development, on Wednesday stressed the
importance of U.S. foreign aid and trade at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition breakfast at the Four
Seasons.
Ridge and Bryan brought attention to the connections between foreign assistance, economic
prosperity and national security, saying investing overseas makes the world a "safer, better place."
"About 1 percent of the national budget is spent on foreign aid," Bryan said. "The challenges we face
today are different. Foreign aid is terribly important."
President Barack Obama's proposed $3.8 trillion budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, allocates $58
billion for foreign aid.
In a speech to about 150 attendees, Ridge said that the country certainly needs a strong military,
but that the military isn't the only option. He said the U.S. also needs diplomacy and foreign
assistance - also known as smart power - to advance its national interests around the world.
"There will always be some resistance to foreign aid," Ridge said.
He said there are some people known as political protectionists who want to withdraw from the world,
while other opponents, described as economic protectionists, cite costs. The former Pennsylvania
governor emphasized that both sides argue it is in America's best interest to withdraw from the world.
"How can it be in (our) best interest to be less engaged?" Ridge said. "It is in our interest to be
more engaged, not less engaged. The world expects us to lead whether we like it or not."
Bryan cautioned that an absence of being involved around the world "does have consequences for
our national security."
Access to foreign markets also is crucial to Nevada's economic recovery, with one in five jobs
statewide dependent on trade. Nevada's export shipments of merchandise last year totaled $10.2
billion.
Plan will be spun as an investment
Kadden, Senior Legislative Manager for InterAction, 4-10-13
[Jeremy, 4-10-13, Huffington Post, “The Good, the Bad, and the Budget: What President Obama's Plan
Means for Foreign Aid,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-kadden/obama-budget-foreignaid_b_3056552.html, accessed 7-9-13, MSG]
Now that the administration's proposal is on the table alongside House and Senate budget plans, it
is up to Congress to hash out where spending will fall. In doing so, they must remember that povertyfocused development and humanitarian accounts make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget.
Cutting these programs will not address the deficit, but supporting them is a wise investment and
makes a real difference for people around the world working to improve their lives.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 43
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Efficiency
Foreign aid popular- it’s cost-effective, saves lives, and is spun as preserving
American power
Huckabee and Lincoln, Former Arkansas Governor and Senator, 12
[Mike Huckabee and Blanche Lincoln, October 22nd 2012, Politico, “Why U.S. foreign aid still makes
sense,” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82684.html, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
Indeed, in the seven decades following the Second World War, American global leadership has helped
the world achieve a level of prosperity unprecedented in human history. We helped Europe dig out of
its darkest days through the Marshall Plan, stood fast in the defense of freedom during the Cold War, and
paved the way for global commerce by helping to establish international financial and political
institutions.
As President Ronald Reagan said about U.S. international engagement, “We cannot play innocents
abroad in a world that is not innocent.”
Credit for America’s global leadership role belongs to both major political parties and Americans
of all stripes – business leaders, students, clergy, union members, and everyone in between.
Americans across the board have always been guided by the notion that all lives have equal value,
regardless of where someone was born.
Nevertheless, we recognize that Americans today are suffering at home from one of the worst economic
recessions in modern history. We understand that there might be temptation to cut back on U.S.
humanitarian programs and investments abroad. However, the cost of cutting back on such
programs is not worth it. Not even close. It would affect too many peoples’ lives and damage
American economic and national security interests at a time our world is more interconnected than
ever.
It might come as a surprise to learn that less than one percent of the U.S. budget is spent on foreign
assistance. It might even be shocking to discover that, despite this relatively small amount, these funds
are literally saving millions of lives and improving the lives of many more millions of people.
For example, American investments in cost-effective vaccines will help save nearly 4 million
children’s lives from preventable diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhea over the next five years.
We’ve also helped to deliver 290 million mosquito nets to Malaria-stricken countries, and put 46 million
children in school for the very first time. And thanks to the leadership of Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama, 8 million HIV/AIDS patients now have access to life-saving treatments,
up from just 300,000 a decade ago, making an AIDS-free generation a real possibility within our
lifetimes.
A healthier, less impoverished planet is good for all of us. From an economic standpoint, it allows
people to contribute more to the marketplace and lead productive lives. U.S. foreign assistance opens
new markets to U.S. goods and services and creates new trading partners and allies.
Consider Africa, where, for the first time, the continent is receiving more foreign investment than foreign
aid. Six of the 10 fastest growing economies are in Africa, which has sustained average economic growth
above 5 percent over the past decade. Countries in Africa and the rest of the developing world are
becoming global players essential for our own continued growth.
From a security perspective, the fight against extreme poverty is one of the best ways to tackle the
root causes of instability, violence, and war. That’s why our military leaders are integrating socalled ‘soft power’ solutions into our national security strategies. The Pentagon knows that R.B.s
(“relationships built”) are often as important as any other tactic in achieving victory.
Policymakers worried about inefficiencies should look to U.S. foreign aid as a model of smart,
effective government. Most programs are administered through grants to private organizations like
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 44
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Arkansas-based Winrock International, Save the Children, and Catholic Relief Charities, groups that are
efficient, on-the-ground, and working to make a real difference in people’s lives. The U.S. also works
with other international donors and aid recipients themselves to help them become self-sufficient.
Helping people help themselves is a long-standing American value.
As Americans we are enormously blessed to live in the greatest country on the globe, and, to whom much
is given, much is expected. We have an exceptional leadership role to play in the world. Even in tough
economic times, we are extremely fortunate. Around the world, nearly one billion people will go to bed
hungry tonight. In this year alone, 2.4 million children will die as a result of malnutrition. One thing all
Americans can agree on – even in the midst of this rancorous campaign season – is that we are at our
very best as a nation when we offer a helping hand to support others in need.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 45
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Trade Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 46
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Political Spin
Trade focus bolsters spin
Pflanz, Christian Science Monitor, 6-30-13
[Mike, The Christian Science Monitor, “Obama pledges to help double electricity in sub-Saharan Africa;
President Obama is casting the $7 billion initiative as part of a new US strategy to move the region
forward with development not charity dollars.,” Lexis, accessed 7-8-13, AFB]
Trade not aid
Together, the aim of the "trade not aid" mantra is a goal familiar to many back home in the US:
making individuals wealthier and businesses more profitable, in societies that respect laws and thus
create confidence for new investors.
It's capitalism 101. It opens new markets for American goods, too.
And - unlike George W. Bush's immensely popular but immensely expensive HIV/Aids PEPFAR
programme - Obama's aid plans come with a relatively cheap price tag for US taxpayers.
The president is very aware of the dilemmas he faces in winning approval back home to spend
dollars overseas.
"Our foreign aid budget is around 1 percent of our total federal budget. It's chronically the least popular
part of our federal budget," Obama told reporters. "We've got budget constraints back home, which
means that we've got to come up with new and creative ways to promote development and deliver
aid. Every dollar that we're putting in, we're getting a huge amount of private-sector dollars.
"If we're working smarter, the amount of good that we can bring about over the next decade is
tremendous."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 47
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Renewables Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 48
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – GOP
Renewables unpopular with Republicans – they intend to crush the budget
Spross, Thinkprogress, Blogger 6-29-13
[Jeff Spross, 6-29-13, Climate Progress, “House Republicans Want To Cut Nearly $1 Billion In
Renewable Funding For 2014”, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/29/2233591/house-republicanswant-to-cut-nearly-1-billion-in-renewable-funding-for-2014/?mobile=nc, accessed 7-07-13 AMS]
This past Tuesday, President Obama unveiled his second-term plan for cutting carbon emissions, and
delivered a bracing call for the American economy to advance into a clean energy future. This past
Wednesday, House Republicans responded by moving a bill out of the Appropriations Committee
that would cut investments in renewables by nearly a billion dollars.
The legislation in question is the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which is the fifth of twelve
spending bills the House must pass to establish the discretionary budget for 2014. Sequestration — the
across-the-board spending cuts that went into effect earlier this year — set a top-line level of $967 billion
for that spending. But Republicans are attempting to ease the cuts to the military by slicing even
deeper into other programs. That led to a party-line vote in the committee to cut renewable
investments in the bill by $911 million from their level in 2013.
Renewables are unpopular- Republicans want to defy the Obama administration
Abrams, Associated Press, 7-10-13
[Jim, 7-10-13, Huffington Post, “Renewable Energy Budget Cut In Half In House Republicans' Spending
Bill,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/renewable-energy-budget_n_3575842.html, accessed
7-10-13, MSG]
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are proposing to slash money for renewable energy research
and defy the Obama administration's decision to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository in a bare-bones annual spending bill for energy and water programs.
The House could vote late Wednesday on the legislation. The bill has little support in the Democraticled Senate and faces a White House veto, but makes clear just how far apart the two parties are on
policy and budgetary matters.
The bill would approve $30.4 billion for Energy Department programs, including nuclear weapons
maintenance, almost $3 billion below the amount approved last year. It would cut spending for
renewable energy programs by half.
Any renewables investment will face opposition – Republicans will prioritize the
military
SustainableBusiness.com, News 13
[6-19-13, “Renewables Slashed as GOP Shifts Budget To Defense”,
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24988, accessed, 7-07-13 AMS]
Just as Ernest Moniz, new secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), talked up the importance
of renewable energy, energy, Republicans are preparing to slash its budget.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee voted Monday to cut renewable energy spending at DOE
in half - by $911 million - in fiscal 2014 (not counting 8.7% cuts in the current sequester), ostensibly to
cope with a second round of automatic sequestration cuts.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 49
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Since they want to raise defense spending $28 billion above the sequester level they are looking for
cuts elsewhere.
"In a challenging fiscal environment, we have to prioritize funding, and the Subcommittee chose to
address the readiness and safety of the nation's nuclear stockpile and to invest in critical
infrastructure projects to protect lives and property and support economic growth," says Energy and
Water Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ).
Nuclear security would be funded at $11.3 billion - $661 million above the sequester level - while
renewable energy would get less than $1 billion next year.
They also want steep cuts in one of DOE's flagship programs, ARPA-E, which funds breakthrough energy
research.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 50
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Oil Lobby
Oil lobbies have massive Congressional influence—they’ll try to defeat clean energy
Think Progress 12
(Rebecca Leber, 10/24/12, Think Progress, “Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil
Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-waysbig-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/?mobile=nc, Accessed 7/10/13,
JC)
The oil industry reinvests tens of millions of these dollars for political purposes, including nearly all
political contributions to Republicans, lobbying, and campaign ads. Through its enormous spending,
these five and other Big Oil companies have fought to maintain $4 billion of their annual subsidies,
while seeking to undermine clean energy investments:
$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big five
companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying
disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4
million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16
million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to
pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil
and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent of its near $50 million in contributions
to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.
Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal,
reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to
outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by
the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And
the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil
production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s
shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down.
This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under
President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of
federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of
the many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.
Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are
mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax
breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the
credit “so toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with
Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy.
Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite
years of record-breaking profits.
Overall, these efforts to keep their tax breaks while weakening public health safeguards from
pollution have paid off in Congress and for Republican candidates. The House of Representatives is
the most anti-environment in Congressional history, averaging at least one anti-environment vote per
day to eliminate or undermine pollution protections, many benefiting Big Oil. And the Romney/Ryan
budget plan would give the big five oil companiesanother $2.3 billion annual tax cut beyond existing
loopholes.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 51
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Oil and gas lobbies fight spending on renewables—causes Congressional backlash
Doering, USA Today Gannett Washington Bureau, 12
(Christopher, ¶ 7/2/12, USA Today, “Renewable advocates battle oil industry over energy policy,”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-02/renewable-fuels-oilcongress/55987052/1, Accessed 7/10/13, JC)
Among the factors making a major shift of U.S. energy policy difficult are the upcoming elections,
the inability of lawmakers to reach a consensus on how to change it, and the high costs necessary to
expand access to fuels such as natural gas for consumers at U.S. filling stations.
That hasn't stopped the oil industry from aggressively wooing Congressional lawmakers on hotbutton issues, including lobbying against renewable fuels.
Last year alone ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and the American Petroleum
Institute, the trade group that represents these energy giants, used $66.2 million for lobbying efforts,
nearly 44% of the $150 million total spent by the oil and gas industry, according to data compiled by
the Center for Responsive Politics. Collectively, nearly 800 lobbyists worked on behalf of oil and gas
interests in 2011.
The total towers over the $53 million spent by what the center classifies as the "miscellaneous energy"
industry — which counts the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy and the American Wind
Energy Association as its members. The grouping includes 751 lobbyists.
Renewables unpopular with oil lobbies- they will relentlessly fight against
renewables
Buis, Growth Energy CEO, 6-26-13
[Tom, 6-26-13, Ethanol Producer, “Big Oil Talks Out of Both Sides of Mouth,”
http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/9992/big-oil-talks-out-of-both-sides-of-mouth, accessed 7-10-13,
MSG]
As a matter of fact, Big Oil has erected every possible barrier to prevent higher blends, such as E15,
from entering the commercial marketplace, protecting their market share and record profits at the
expense of the free market and consumer choice.
They have launched an aggressive and endless public relations campaign designed to deceive and
distort the truth about the true benefits of renewables. They have also taken their challenges to the
courts. Big Oil’s deep pockets are funding a relentless campaign to lobby Congress to repeal the
renewable fuel standard (RFS). Oil companies have made it clear they will do whatever it takes to
maintain their stranglehold on the liquid fuels market.
Oil lobbies spend extensive capital in Congress to crush renewables
Leber, ThinkProgress, Reporter, 12
[Rebecca Leber ,University of Rochester, B.A. in political science, 10-24-12, Thinkprogress, “Three
Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy”,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oilsubsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/, accessed 7-10-13 AMS]
Starting tomorrow, the world’s largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and
ConocoPhillips — will begin to announce their third-quarter profits for 2012. In the first half of 2012,
these companies — all ranked in the top 10 of Fortune 500 Global — earned over $60 billion.
The oil industry reinvests tens of millions of these dollars for political purposes, including nearly all
political contributions to Republicans, lobbying, and campaign ads. Through its enormous spending,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 52
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
these five and other Big Oil companies have fought to maintain $4 billion of their annual subsidies,
while seeking to undermine clean energy investments:
$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big
five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying
disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4
million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16
million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money
to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top
oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent of its near $50 million in
contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.
Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal,
reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned
to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and
funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went
overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about
oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s
shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down.
This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under
President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of
federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the
many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.
Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are
mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax
breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so
toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The
Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the
industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of recordbreaking profits.
Overall, these efforts to keep their tax breaks while weakening public health safeguards from
pollution have paid off in Congress and for Republican candidates. The House of Representatives is
the most anti-environment in Congressional history, averaging at least one anti-environment vote
per day to eliminate or undermine pollution protections, many benefiting Big Oil. And the
Romney/Ryan budget plan would give the big five oil companies another $2.3 billion annual tax cut
beyond existing loopholes.
Massive attacks against renewables from oil lobbies, block the necessary shift in
energy policy
Doering, Gannett Washington Bureau, 12
[Christopher Doering, 7-02-12, USA Today, “Renewable advocates battle oil industry over energy
policy”, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-02/renewable-fuels-oilcongress/55987052/1, accessed 7-10-13 AMS]
Big oil and natural gas companies may vastly outspend and outman the renewable fuels industry on
Capitol Hill but the general gridlock in Washington gives advocates of wind, ethanol and other new-age
sources the upper hand in the growing battle to overhaul the country's energy policy.
"This Congress…seems unable to make a national energy policy," said Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State
University economist. "The renewable fuels have an advantage in that they are part of current law, and it's
always easier to maintain current law than it is to change it."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 53
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Among the factors making a major shift of U.S. energy policy difficult are the upcoming elections,
the inability of lawmakers to reach a consensus on how to change it, and the high costs necessary to
expand access to fuels such as natural gas for consumers at U.S. filling stations.
That hasn't stopped the oil industry from aggressively wooing Congressional lawmakers on hotbutton issues, including lobbying against renewable fuels.
Last year alone ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and the American
Petroleum Institute, the trade group that represents these energy giants, used $66.2 million for lobbying
efforts, nearly 44% of the $150 million total spent by the oil and gas industry, according to data
compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Collectively, nearly 800 lobbyists worked on behalf of
oil and gas interests in 2011.
The total towers over the $53 million spent by what the center classifies as the "miscellaneous energy"
industry — which counts the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy and the American Wind
Energy Association as its members. The grouping includes 751 lobbyists.
Despite the huge financial disadvantage, renewable fuels groups remain unconvinced that the public
relations push by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry will be enough to get lawmakers in
Washington to act.
"I think what you're seeing out here over the past couple of years is the oil industry has tried to runup the negatives on any type of renewable energy," said Tom Buis, head of Growth Energy, which
represents ethanol producers. "They've pushed real hard on the political front and certainly on the
advocacy front."
"We do not consider the renewable fuels industry as a threat at all." said Carlton Carroll, a spokesman
with API, who touted his industry's investments in renewable fuels such as wind and solar. "We need all
forms of energy going forward, including renewables."
Any action by Congress to end or alter a 2007 mandate that established a threshold for biofuels use in
transportation fuel, or allowing existing subsidies for wind to expire at the end of this year, would
threaten to hobble the industry and batter states such as Iowa that have thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars invested in the sector.
This year alone the standard mandates the use of 13.2 billion gallons of alternative fuels, with most of it
coming from corn. The Environmental Protection Agency recently gave final approval to sell fuel
containing a 15% ethanol blend in newer vehicles, up from the current 10% level, which could help boost
demand for the corn-based additive.
A major threat to renewable energy remains the surge in natural gas production in the United
States that has resulted in record low natural gas prices. The glut has spurred businesses and power
plants to turn to the fuel as part of their own efforts to cut costs.
In addition to creating a new threat to renewable fuels, all the new oil and natural gas production
further highlights the geographical and political boundaries between grain-dependent biofuel states in
the Midwest versus the fossil fuel juggernaut of Texas.
"You always have geographic concerns. Texas is a big oil state," said Buis. "I don't think we're going to
win over too many people in that state but if you look at the policy, Congress hasn't changed the
policy and I don't think they will."
Oil Lobby groups will fight with renewables programs and the EPA
Shauk, Houston Chronicle, 12
[Zain, 7-25-12, Fuel Fix, “Oil Lobby Chalanges Renewable Fuel Mandate”,
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/07/25/oil-lobby-group-challenges-renewable-fuel-mandate/, accessed 7-1013, HG]
The American Petroleum Institute filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming the government is requiring
refiners and gasoline importers to purchase renewable fuels that don’t exist.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 54
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in Washington, argued that the Environmental Protection
Agency’s mandates are unreasonable, according to the API, an energy industry trade and lobbying
group.
“EPA’s unattainable and absurd mandate forces refiners to pay a penalty for failing to use biofuels that
don’t even exist,” Bob Greco, the API’s director of downstream and industry operations, said in a
statement.
The EPA did not immediately respond to inquiries about the disputed renewable – cellulosic biofuel —
ethanol fermented from products other than corn, which is the main source of U.S. biofuel now. The
agency has said that wood chips, wood residue, grasses, agricultural residue, animal waste and
municipal solid wastes can also be used to produce cellulosic biofuels.
In 2012, the EPA will require gasoline producers and importers to displace 0.006 percent of their total
gasoline production with the purchase of cellulosic biofuels.
As is the case with other EPA-supported biofuel incentive programs, biofuel makers can sell a credit to
gasoline producers for each gallon of biofuel they make. But no credits have been generated for cellulosic
biofuels this year, or ever, according to the EPA’s website.
In the absence of credits, the EPA will allow gasoline producers to purchase cellulosic biofuel waivers at
a cost of 78 cents a gallon to meet obligations at the end of the year.
Oil and gas lobbyists are arguing that the incentive program will require refiners and importers to
pay for 6.6 million gallons of the “nonexistent biofuel.”
The agency has mandated cellulosic biofuel credit purchases since 2010, but no credits were available, so
companies were required to buy waiver credits from the government. In total, the credits have cost the
industry about $14 million over two years, Greco said in a telephone interview.
“That’s, in effect, a tax,” Greco said. “We’re having to pay for a fuel that doesn’t exist when the
EPA could have adjusted the mandate to reflect that reality.”
The API filed a petition with the agency last year, asking the EPA to reconsider the 2012 mandates
because of the limited availability of cellulosic biofuels. The agency has stuck with the mandate, with the
intent of creating an incentive for more production of the fuel.
“API supports a realistic and workable (Renewable Fuel Standard) and continues to recommend
that EPA base its prediction on at least two months of actual cellulosic biofuel production in the
current year when establishing the mandated volumes for the following year,” the lobbying group
said in a statement. “This approach would provide a more realistic assessment of potential future
production rather than simply relying on the assertions of companies whose ability to produce the
cellulosic biofuel volumes EPA hopes for is questionable.”
Oil lobbies are fighting against renewables
SustainableBusiness.com, 4.18.13
[“Big Oil Prefers to Crush Renewables Rather Than Invest in Them:,
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24788, accessed: 7/10/13, ML]
BP dropped its long-standing solar and wind divisions, Shell focuses on how wind energy can assist
fossil fuel extraction, and Exxon and Chevron have pulled back from biofuels.
And with the help of ALEC, the oil industry is attempting to eliminate the US Renewable Fuel
Standard and prevent California and the Northeast from implementing local standards.
Why? Because big oil has discovered that since they make much bigger money by sticking with their
core business, why bother branching out? Instead, it's much easier to crush competing forms of
energy.
In 2007, when Chevron was exploring biofuels, it helped California Governor Schwarzenegger write the
first-in-the-nation Low Carbon Standard, that by 2020 will cut greenhouse gases from cars and trucks by
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 55
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
10% below 2010 levels. It was passed in 2011 and the state is on track to meet the goal. Transportation
fuels account for 36% of California's emissions.
Now, the company is leading the charge against it because "it is not achievable." Why? Because they
can only get 5% returns on biofuels when they get triple that from oil, reports Bloomberg.
In the US, transportation fuels are a $500 billion market.
"The best outcome for the oil companies is if nothing changes," Paul Bryan, former vice president of
biofuels for Chevron, told Bloomberg. "You can make money today making advanced biofuels - you just
won't make as much money as the oil companies would like." He left Chevron in 2010 after working
there for 15 years. They have since wound down those investments.
ExxonMobil Corp., which splashed television ads for years touting their foray into algae-based fuels, has
largely retreated from those efforts.
While the companies accept the science of climate change and its causes, they say California's law must
be stopped because substitute technologies are too far down the road and until then, the result will be
much higher gas prices and loss of jobs (since when are they concerned about this?).
Several organizations funded by the oil lobby are working against low carbon fuel standards.
Fueling California spent over $327,000 in the last two years lobbying against them and the Consumer
Energy Alliance runs campaigns instilling fear of losing hundreds of thousands of jobs from these
mandates.
That resulted in a New Hampshire law passed last year that prohibits participation in the proposed
Northeast Clean Fuel Standard without legislative approval, reports Bloomberg.
ALEC is urging other states to adopt that same law because it doesn't want the government to
"dictate" peoples' choice of fuels.
From 2009-2010, when federal climate legislation almost passed, big oil spent half a billion dollars
lobbying against it. Nine of the 10 top scientists that produce research questioning climate change are
linked to ExxonMobil.
Renewables unpopular with oil lobbies – past court cases prove
Shauk, Houston Chronicle, 1/15/13
[Zain, 1-15-13, Houston Chronicle, “Oil Industry Lobby Targets Mandate for Renewable Fuel”,
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Oil-industry-lobby-targets-mandate-for-renewable4196897.php, accessed 7-10-13, HG]
On the same day an appeals court threw out a challenge to one of the federal requirements for
renewable fuels in the nation's fuel supply, a top oil industry lobbying group launched an
aggressive push to scrap the entire mandate.
The American Petroleum Institute on Tuesday unveiled a new line of TV, radio and newspaper
advertisements designed to highlight the value of U.S. refineries. The ads feature the same black-suited
woman who appears in the organization's long-running Energy Tomorrow campaign.
One shows her in front of scurrying workers and cars speeding along the highway, as she outlines
what it takes "to make America run" including "lots of hard-working Americans creating the fuels
for nearly 250 million vehicles."
The industry wants to get rid of an 8-year-old rule that forces refiners to blend steadily increasing
amounts of ethanol and other alternatives into the nation's transportation fuel supply. By 2022, the
mandate will require 36 billion gallons, up from 13.2 billion gallons last year.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court's
decision throwing out a challenge to a portion of the mandate by plaintiffs including oil and food industry
trade groups.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 56
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
They opposed the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of gasoline blends containing up to
15 percent ethanol, questioning the blend's reliability for use in vehicles and arguing that because most
U.S. ethanol is made from corn, ethanol production drives up food prices.
The courts held that the plaintiffs failed to detail how they were harmed by the rule.
The renewable fuel rule also requires refiners to use cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass and
other non-edible plant materials, but that fuel has not been mass-produced.
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard ridiculed that rule at an event last week, saying it lets
regulators penalize the industry "because we don't use a fuel that doesn't exist."
But Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, said that the federal fuel standard
is "stimulating investment in next-generation ethanol." He suggested the oil industry's opposition is
driven by competitive fear.
Patrick Kelly, the American Petroleum Institute's downstream refining manager, told reporters on
Tuesday that even without a renewable fuel requirement, the nation's transportation fuels generally would
continue to contain about 10 percent ethanol.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 57
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – GOP
Majority of Republicans support renewables – Studies prove
Hower, Sustainable Brands, Associate Editor, 4-4-13
[Mike Hower, Triple Pundit, Contributor, 4-04-13, Triple Pundit, “Ending the Debate: Most Republicans
Actually Support Increased Renewable Energy Use”, http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/04/breakingdebate-republicans-actually-support-increased-renewable-energy/, accessed, 7-07-13 AMS]
Apparently, the debate over global warming is not as big as the hard-liners at Fox News and on
Capitol Hill would lead us to believe. A recent study released by Yale and George Mason University
found that nearly 80 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents support
increasing renewable energy use and more than 60 percent believe the United States should take
action to address climate change.
Interestingly, the report also found that only a third of Republican respondents agree with the GOP’s
position on climate change, which has changed dramatically since 2008.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 58
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Biomedical Research
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 59
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular - GOP
Increased spending on biomedicine is politically unpopular—low success rate and
sequestration cuts prove
Science Insider 5/21/13
(Jocelyn Kaiser, 5/21/13, Science Insider, “Sequester's 5% Cut Rolls Through Biomedical Labs,”
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/sequesters-5-cut-rolls-through-b.html, Accessed
7/11/13, JC)
Given that sequestration lopped off a staggering $1.55 billion from the National Institutes of
Health's (NIH's) budget this year, it shouldn't be hard to find examples of how the cut is harming
research labs. Although sequestration "has already dealt a devastating blow," said NIH Director Francis
Collins at a Senate hearing last week, it turns out it's not that easy to spell out the damage.
One reason is that many grantees won't receive good or bad news about their proposals until later in the
fiscal year that ends 30 September. Even then, the effects will be part of a larger pattern of declining
funding over the past decade, NIH watchers say. "People are feeling a lot of pain, but to actually put it
on sequestration versus other pressures on the budget, we're only guessing," says Howard Garrison,
deputy executive director for policy at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. At
the individual level, "it's hard to say what the actual source is."
NIH is losing $1.7 billion this year from sequestration and other cuts, lowering its budget to $29.15
billion. New and competing grants are going down by 703, from 8986. As a result, the NIH grant
success rate (the portion of reviewed grants that received funding) may drop from an already recordlow 18% in 2012 to 16%, according to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate spending
subcommittee that discussed NIH's 2014 budget request last week.
Obama faces an uphill battle on biomedical spending—fiscally conservative
Republicans
Coalition for Life Sciences 9
(CLS, 2009, “A New Year, a New Congress—What This Means for the Biomedical Research
Community,” http://www.coalitionforlifesciences.org/be-an-advocate/legislative-alerts/129-a-new-year-anew-congresswhat-this-means-for-the-biomedical-research-community, Accessed 7/11/13, JC)
A session of Congress always brings changes and new experiences. In Washington, we are gearing up
to face a new, more fiscally conservative Congress. Many of the newly elected Republicans were
elected by campaigning for smaller government small and lower federal spending.
The new Republican majority in the House is reinvigorated and ready to make a real impact on the
way Washington operates. One proposal being discussed is to cut the budgets of federal agencies to
2008 levels. If this were enacted, the appropriation for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be
6.4% lower than FY2010 final levels and the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget would be 13%
lower.
These cuts could devastate the research community. Since the end of the doubling of the NIH budget in
2003, funding for biomedical research has been erratic—resulting in a real decline in the amount of
funding that is available to support medical breakthroughs and a new generation of scientists.
The research community has a strong supporter in the White House. In a press conference on November
3, the day after the election, President Barack Obama said he was opposed to cuts in research and
development. This is a sign that the White House is likely to oppose such draconian actions by
Republicans. "I don't think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 60
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make all the difference in terms of job
creation here at home," President Obama said.
Republicans hate the plan
Coalition for Life Sciences, 12
[Coalition for life sciences, “A New Year, a New Congress—What This Means for the Biomedical
Research Community”, http://www.coalitionforlifesciences.org/be-an-advocate/legislative-alerts/129-anew-year-a-new-congresswhat-this-means-for-the-biomedical-research-community, accessed: 7/10/13,
ML]
A session of Congress always brings changes and new experiences. In Washington, we are gearing up
to face a new, more fiscally conservative Congress. Many of the newly elected Republicans were
elected by campaigning for smaller government small and lower federal spending.
The new Republican majority in the House is reinvigorated and ready to make a real impact on the
way Washington operates. One proposal being discussed is to cut the budgets of federal agencies to
2008 levels. If this were enacted, the appropriation for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be
6.4% lower than FY2010 final levels and the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget would be 13%
lower.
These cuts could devastate the research community. Since the end of the doubling of the NIH budget
in 2003, funding for biomedical research has been erratic—resulting in a real decline in the amount
of funding that is available to support medical breakthroughs and a new generation of scientists.
The research community has a strong supporter in the White House. In a press conference on November
3, the day after the election, President Barack Obama said he was opposed to cuts in research and
development. This is a sign that the White House is likely to oppose such draconian actions by
Republicans. "I don't think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can
develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make all the difference in terms of job
creation here at home," President Obama said.
We will be monitoring the new political climate and will let you know when action is required to
protect the funding of the Federal agencies that fund research in biology and medicine. It would be
helpful at any time to let your elected officials know that you and your colleagues depend on Federal
funds to support life science research and jobs in your region.
Prominent Republicans fight biomedical research
Baily, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine , 12 [Ronald,
January, “Who’s Reason.com, More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats?”,
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de, accessed: 7/11/13,
ML]
Berezow acknowledged that many prominent Republican politicians, including several presidential
candidates, deny biological evolution, are skeptical of the scientific consensus on man-made global
warming, and oppose research using human embryonic stem cells. Democrats, Berezow argued, tend
to be more anti-vaccine, anti-nuclear power, anti-biotechnology, and anti-biomedical research involving
tests on animals.
In support of these claims Berezow cited polling data from a 2008 survey conducted by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press, which identified a number of partisan divides on
scientific questions. On biological evolution, the survey reported that 97 percent of scientists agree that
living things, including human beings, evolved over time, compared to 58 percent of Democrats and 49
percent of Republicans.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 61
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
On climate change, the Pew survey reported that 84 percent of scientists believe that recent warming is
the result of human activity, compared to 64 percent of Democrats and only 30 percent of Republicans.
That’s a truly deep divide on a scientific issue.
The Pew survey next asked about federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, which
Democrats favored by 71 percent compared to only 38 percent for Republicans. But the GOP response is
likely tied to two issues: (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral status as adult people; and
(2) the general belief that spending taxpayer dollars on research is suboptimal. These are policy
differences rather than scientific differences.
But what about Berezow’s examples of left-wing bias? Mooney’s basic assertion is that Democratic antiscience is a fringe with no power, unlike the know-nothing Tea Party activists who influence
Republican politics. For example, Mooney argues that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “is
not a liberal group commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesn’t drive mainstream
Democratic policy, etc.” Fair enough. But the Pew survey does report that 48 percent of Democrats
oppose using animals in scientific research, whereas only 33 percent of Republicans do. Like stem cells,
using animals in research is often framed as a moral issue.
With regard to nukes, the Pew survey found that 70 percent of scientists are in favor of building more
nuclear power plants, compared to 62 percent of Republicans and just 45 percent of Democrats. This
difference reflects divergent views on nuclear safety: A 2009 Gallup poll reported that while 73 percent of
Republicans are confident in the safety of nuclear power plants, only 46 percent of Democrats agree.
What about partisan attitudes toward genetically enhanced crops and animals? A 2006 survey by the
Pew Trusts found that 48 percent of Republicans believe that biotech foods are safe compared to 42
percent of Democrats. Are they right to be leery? A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report noted:
“To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human
population.” That is still the case today.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 62
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Cuba Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 63
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Embargo Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 64
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Congress
Plan saps Obama’s capital
Birns & Mills, Council on Hemispheric Affairs director and senior research fellow,
1/30/13
(Larry and Frederick B., Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is
Now,” http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed 7/9/13)
Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been
introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions
affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban
dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by
Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and
Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is
the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The antiCastro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are
too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo
as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist
tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism.
Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of nonviolent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors
agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to
maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense
of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The
easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more
democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In
any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in
Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department
should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana
as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill
hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic,
as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba,
going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both
former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012,
Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist
attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as
the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the
White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando
Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a
Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on
charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which
at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that
arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had
infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not
pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go
home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes
to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 65
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation
with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend,
surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the
Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some
of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send
remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional
committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton
Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba
Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her
counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of
the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here
as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is
not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been
long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.
Plan guarantees congressional backlash
Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations associate director, and Lee, CFR senior
production editor, 1/31/13
(Stephanie, coordinating editor at CFR, Brianna, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,”
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, Accessed 7/9/13)
Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps to
roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process
of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial , as indicated by the heated
congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a
large appropriations bill. "Whatever we call it--normalization, détente, rapproachement-- it is
clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue," says Sweig.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 66
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Cuba Lobby
Cuba lobby will block passage - whether or not the embargo is good doesn’t matter
Jilani, former Communications and Outreach Coordinator for United Republic, 12
[Zaid, 4/10/12, Republic Reporter, “It’s Not Just Ozzie Guillen: How The Cuba Lobby Paralyzes U.S.
Policy”, http://www.republicreport.org/2012/ozzie-guillen-cuba-lobby-paralyzes-us-policy/, accessed:
7/4/13, ML]
Informally referred to by leading writers as the “Cuba Lobby,” this tight-knit group of Political
Action Committees (PACs), social organizations, and the lawmakers allied to them have
successfully maintained a failed diplomatic freeze, travel ban, and embargo between the United
States and Cuba for decades.
By exerting its influence, this lobby forces Washington politicians to ignore American public opinion
at large. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor restoring full diplomatic relations
with Cuba, and a majority of Americans wanted to see an end to the embargo as well. Figures and
political groups with as varying politics as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pope, and former
president Jimmy Carter have all called for ending the unilateral sanctions.
The powerful Cuba lobby, based in the crucial political swing state of Florida, exerts its influence
largely through being a powerful political spender. The U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, for example
PAC spent a million dollars in 2008, and has already spent a quarter of a million dollars during this
election cycle. In 2008 and 2010, the majority of the PAC’s funds went to Democrats, but during the 2012
cycle the organization is spending more heavily in favor of Republicans. It’s treasurer is Gus Machado, a
Floridan wealthy auto dealer who regularly raises millions of dollars for charities in the area.
At a fancy gala in 2010, the organization brought together leading congressional Democrats and
Republicans to support the US-Cuba embargo. “When it comes to the topic of Cuba, first comes
Cuba and then comes the party,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a leading embargo proponent, at the
event. The PAC is the largest foreign policy-related PAC spender according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.
Cuba lobby is powerful – no one will support
LeoGrande, professor in the department of government at American University, 13
[William, 4/11/13, Foreign Policy, “The Cuba Lobby”,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?page=0,1&wp_login_redirect=
0, accessed: 7/4/13, ML]
When Obama was elected president, promising a "new beginning" in relations with Havana, the Cuba
Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the senior CubanAmerican Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his
president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410
billion omnibus appropriations bill (needed to keep the government running) because it relaxed the
requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on
travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in
writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Senate Republicans also blocked confirmation of Arturo Valenzuela as Obama's assistant secretary for
Western Hemisphere affairs until November 2009. With the bureau managed in the interim by Bush
holdovers, no one was pushing from below to carry out Obama's new Cuba policy. After Valenzuela
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 67
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
stepped down in 2012, Senator Rubio (R-Fla.), whose father left Cuba in the 1950s, held up confirmation
of Valenzuela's replacement, Roberta Jacobson, until the administration agreed to tighten restrictions on
educational travel to Cuba, undercutting Obama's stated policy of increasing people-to-people
engagement.
When Obama nominated career Foreign Service officer Jonathan Farrar to be ambassador to
Nicaragua, the Cuba Lobby denounced him as soft on communism. During his previous posting as
chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana, Farrar had reported to Washington that Cuba's traditional
dissident movement had very little appeal to ordinary Cubans. Menendez and Rubio teamed up to give
Farrar a verbal beating during his confirmation hearing for carrying out Obama's policy of engaging the
Cuban government rather than simply antagonizing it. When they blocked Farrar's confirmation, Obama
withdrew the nomination, sending Farrar as ambassador to Panama instead. Their point made, Menendez
and Rubio did not object.
The Cuba Lobby's power to derail diplomatic careers is common knowledge among foreign-policy
professionals. Throughout Obama's first term, midlevel State Department officials cooperated more
closely and deferred more slavishly to congressional opponents of Obama's Cuba policy than to
supporters like John Kerry, the new secretary of state who served at the time as Senate Foreign Relations
Committee chairman. When Senator Kerry tried to get the State Department and USAID to reform the
Bush administration's democracy-promotion programs in 2010, he ran into more opposition from the
bureaucracy than from Republicans. If Obama intends to finally keep the 2008 campaign promise to take
a new direction in relations with Cuba, the job can't be left to foreign-policy bureaucrats, who are so
terrified of the Cuba Lobby that they continue to believe, or pretend to believe, absurdities -- that Cubans
are watching TV Martí, for instance, or that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. Only a determined
president and a tough secretary of state can drive a new policy through a bureaucratic wasteland so
paralyzed by fear and inertia.
Blame avoidance is specifically true for the embargo
LeoGrande, professor in the department of government at American University, 13
[William, 4/11/13, Foreign Policy, “The Cuba Lobby”,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?page=0,1&wp_login_redirect=
0, accessed: 7/4/13, ML]
In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans have long presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the
community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist
groups like Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two CubanAmericans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s
documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF,
played in creating it.
Today, moderate Cuban-Americans have managed to carve out greater space for political debate
about U.S. relations with Cuba as attitudes in the community have changed -- a result of both the
passing of the old exile generation of the 1960s and the arrival of new immigrants who want to maintain
ties with family they left behind. But a network of right-wing radio stations and right-wing bloggers
still routinely vilifies moderates by name, branding anyone who favors dialogue as a spy for Castro.
The modus operandi is the same as the China Lobby's in the 1950s: One anti-Castro crusader makes
dubious accusations of espionage, often based on guilt by association, which the others then repeat ad
nauseam, citing one other as proof.
Like the China Lobby before it, the Cuba Lobby has also struck fear into the heart of the foreignpolicy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the
executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don't toe the line. One of the Cuba
Lobby's early targets was John J. "Jay" Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 68
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then
assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the
Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. "CANF
had close contact with the Cuban desk, which soon turned notably unfriendly toward my reporting from
post and it seemed toward me personally," Taylor recalled in an oral history interview. "Mas and the
foundation soon assumed that I was too soft on Castro."
The risks of crossing the Cuba Lobby were not lost on other foreign-policy professionals. In 1990,
Taylor was in Washington to consult about the newly launched TV Martí, which the Cuban government
was jamming so completely that Cubans on the island dubbed it, "la TV que no se ve" ("No-see TV"). But
TV Martí's patrons in Washington blindly insisted that the vast majority of the Cuban population was
watching the broadcasts. Taylor invited the U.S. Information Agency officials responsible for TV Martí to
come to Cuba to see for themselves. "Silence prevailed around the table," he recalled. "I don't think
anyone there really believed TV Martí signals were being received in Cuba. It was a Kafkaesque moment,
a true Orwellian experience, to see a room full of grown, educated men and women so afraid for their jobs
or their political positions that they could take part in such a charade."
In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton's first choice to be
assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he had once visited Cuba.
According to Stone, fearful of the Cuba Lobby's political clout, Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later,
Clinton caved in to the Cuba Lobby's demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton
Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe,
legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba
told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often
leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to
the department by telephone.
During George W. Bush's administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department's
Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush's first assistant
secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of
Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan's "public diplomacy" operation demonizing opponents of the
president's Central America policy as communist sympathizers. Reich hired as his deputy Dan Fisk,
former staff assistant to Senator Helms and author of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
Reich was followed by Roger Noriega, another former Helms staffer, who explained that Bush's policy
was aimed at destabilizing the Cuban regime: "We opted for change even if it meant chaos. The Cubans
had had too much stability over decades.… Chaos was necessary in order to change reality."
In 2002, Bush's undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the
dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer
for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to
this mischaracterization of the community's assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him
fired. The Cuba Lobby began a steady drumbeat of charges that Armstrong was a Cuban agent
because his and the community's analysis disputed the Bush team's insistence that the Castro regime was
fragile and wouldn't survive the passing of its founder. The 2001 arrest for espionage of the Defense
Intelligence Agency's top Cuba analyst, Ana Montes, heightened the Cuba Lobby's hysteria over traitors
in government in the same way that the spy cases of the 1950s -- Alger Hiss and the Amerasia magazine
affair -- gave the China Lobby ammunition. Armstrong was subjected to repeated and intrusive security
investigations, all of which cleared him of wrongdoing. (He completed a four-year term as national
intelligence officer and received a prestigious CIA medal recognizing his service when he left the agency
in 2008.)
Cuban-american lobby opposes and controls the embargo
Chelala, UN international public health consultant, 12
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 69
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
[Cesar, Phd, 12/3/12, Japan Times, “The politics and insanity of the Cuba embargo”,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/12/03/commentary/the-politics-and-insanity-of-the-cubaembargo/#.UdaEx222YUV, accessed: 7/4/13, ML]
As you know, relations among nations many times have a psychological connection, aside from their
obvious historical one. Because of that, relations among or between nations can contribute to the
creation either of a climate of antagonism and war or of cooperation and peace. Nowhere is this truer
than in the relationship between the United States and Cuba.
Mainly because of internal political considerations, both countries have chosen the path of antagonism.
While the influence of the Cuban lobby in Florida dictates U.S. policy toward the island country,
keeping alive the antagonism with the U.S. agglutinates the Cuban people’s support for the Castro
brothers.
The Cuba Lobby has empirically been one of the most influential political groups in
determining legislation and is vehemently opposed to relaxation of the embargo
LeoGrande, Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs, 4-11-13
[William, Professor of Government at the American University and specialist in Latin American politics
and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Former Staff Member of the Democratic Policy
Committee of the United States Senate and the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Central America of the
United States House of Representatives, Former Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs
Fellow, Former Pew Faculty Fellow in International Affairs, Foreign Policy Magazine, “The Cuba
Lobby,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z accessed 7-5-13 UR]
Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands
out more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3
million since 1996.
In Miami, conservative Cuban--Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the
community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist
groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two
Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s
documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF,
played in creating it.
Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy
bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive
branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line.
One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in
Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott
Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana
that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America.
In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be
assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited
Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza.
Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council
official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba
that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States.
One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State
Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the
diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 70
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State
Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s
first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and
favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing
opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers.
In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious
charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin
America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this
mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired.
When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba
Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior CubanAmerican Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his
president and his party to get his way.
Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill,
needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in
advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get
Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the
administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Senate Republicans also blocked confirmation of Arturo Valenzuela as Obama’s assistant secretary for
Western Hemisphere affairs until November 2009. With the bureau managed in the interim by Bush
holdovers, no one was pushing from below to carry out Obama’s new Cuba policy.
After Valenzuela stepped down in 2012, Sen. Rubio, R-Fla., whose father left Cuba in the 1950s, held
up confirmation of Valenzuela’s replacement, Roberta Jacobson, until the administration agreed to
tighten restrictions on educational travel to Cuba, undercutting Obama’s stated policy of increasing
people-to-people engagement.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 71
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – GOP
Plan ensures GOP leadership backlash
Griswold, Cato Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies director, 5
(Daniel, 10/12/5, Cato Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed
7/9/13)
For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past
five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also
to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in
Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican
leadership . Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public,
but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the
electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense
of our broader national interest.
Lift of the embargo is unpopular with Cuban-American Republicans and
Democracy PAC
Fitzgerald, Newsmax, 7/5/13
[Sandy, “Democracy Advocates Urge Obama to Keep Cuban Trade Ban,” Newsmax,
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Cuba-embargo-democracy-Farinas/2013/07/05/id/513503 accessed 7/5/13
UR]
The trade embargo on Cuba must stay to starve Havana's communist government of cash, prodemocracy activists have told the State Department.
A steady flow of cash into Castro's government could help it crush the island's pro-democracy efforts,
warned Cuban hunger striker Guillermo Farinas who met behind closed doors with Obama administration
officials in Washington.
The Obama administration has yet to comment about the meetings, which included one with Farinas at
Foggy Bottom in late June, reports the Washington Times.
The meetings were described as "extraordinary and very helpful by Mauricio Claver Carone,
executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC in Washington. "[U.S. policymakers] now get
to actually see it and feel it firsthand from the protagonists themselves,” he said.
U.S. and Cuban officials in June held a landmark meeting to discuss re-establishing direct mail between
the countries, and plan a July 17 meeting to talk about migration regulations.
Castro, 82, who replaced his older brother, Fidel, has allowed some reforms since he took over in 2008,
including easing travel bans. He plans to step down in 2018, when his second five-year term in office
ends. The United States has been in a stalemate with Cuba since 1961, when the elder Castro agreed to
allow the former Soviet Union to house ballistic weapons in Cuba.
Even though Fidel Castro has not been in office for several years, Cuba is still on Washington's terrorism
sponsors list.
In addition, Cuba is still detaining American Alan Gross, who was arrested in 2009 while in Cuba
working for an International Development-funded program.
Cuban authorities sentenced Gross to 15 years in prison for illegally delivering satellite phones to Jewish
Cubans.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 72
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The Washington meetings suggest a thaw in the two countries' relationships, a change that some
U.S. lawmakers — particularly Cuban-American Republicans — criticize.
Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethinen said Thursday that she and other Cuban-American
lawmakers met with the democracy advocates, and she remains skeptical about changes and
believes the embargo needs to continue until "Cuba becomes a free and democratic society."
Plan is massively unpopular with Florida Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Cuban-American
Republicans – seen as a loss
AP 6/19/13
[Associated Press, USA Today, “U.S., Cuba agree to resume immigration talks,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/19/cuba-immigration-talks/2439915/ accessed
7/4/13 UR]
"Representatives from the Department of State are scheduled to meet with representatives of the
Cuban government to discuss migration issues," the official said, adding that the talks were "consistent
with our interest in promoting greater freedoms and respect for human rights in Cuba."
Word of the jump-started talks sparked an angry reaction from Cuban-American Republican Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who blasted the Obama administration for what she saw as a policy
of appeasement.
"First we get news that the Obama State Department is speaking with a top Castro regime diplomat.
Then comes the announcement that the administration is restarting talks with the dictatorship
regarding direct mail between both countries," Ros-Lehtinen said. "Now we hear that migration
talks will be restarted. It's concession after concession from the Obama administration."
Lifting the embargo is perceived as a concession by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and
Republican Cuban-Americans
Taylor, The Washington Times, 6/18/13
[Gus, "U.S.-Cuba mail talks spark speculation of wider outreach,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/18/us-cuba-mail-talks-spark-speculation-wider-outreac/
accessed 7/4/13 UR]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, said that the White House is caving to pressure
from Cuban leaders desperate to end trade restrictions frozen since the 1960s.
“The regime is once again manipulating the U.S. administration in this game because it wants us to
lift the embargo and make further concessions,” said Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen, a former chairwoman of the
House Foreign Relations Committee and a staunch opponent of easing the stand-off that has defined
bilateral relations since Cuban leader Fidel Castro agreed to house Soviet ballistic missiles in 1961.
Mr. Castro, 86, stepped down in 2008, and the top post is now held by his 82-year-old brother Raul.
The State Department said Monday that the postal talks will occur well within policy boundaries set long
ago by Congress.
The talks will be led by R. Cabanas Rodriguez, the chief of mission at the Cuban Interests Section in
Washington, and Lea Emerson, the U.S. Postal Service’s director of international postal affairs.
Similar negotiations in 2009 failed to produce an agreement. Separate negotiations on issues such as
immigration have been on hold during recent years amid tensions simmering between the U.S. and Cuba
over the trade embargo and Washington’s unwillingness to remove Cuba from its official list of state
sponsors of terrorism.
Washington has also demanded that Cuba release jailed American subcontractor Alan Gross, who
was arrested in December 2009 while working for a U.S. Agency for International Development-funded
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 73
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
program. Cuban authorities gave a 15-year prison sentence to Mr. Gross and accused him of illegally
delivering satellite phones to individuals in the nation’s Jewish community.
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen alluded to the case in a statement Monday, asserting that “a U.S. citizen
languishes unjustly in a Cuban prison and brave freedom Cuban activists are risking their lives
while on hunger strikes to protest the island tyranny.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 74
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Cuban American Lawmakers
Powerful opposition to the plan from Cuban-American lawmakers
White, Center for International Policy senior fellow, 3/7/13
(Robert E., New York Times, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 7/9/13)
Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize
the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his
brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at
all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from
Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 75
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Rubio
Even slight relaxations of the embargo are massively unpopular with CubanAmerican senators
Pecquet, The Hill, 12
[Julian, 6-7-12, “Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wall-withobama-administration-on-cuba-policy accessed 7-5-13 UR]
The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama
administration's top official for the Americas on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed
up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called the
administration's relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department's
decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter
Mariela.
“The Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were
imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags,” Menendez said. “I am compelled to ask again today —
as I have before — why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba?”
Rubio said Castro government officials are master manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion.
The two senators favor a hard-line stance against Cuba until regime change takes place. Critics of that
policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro brothers Fidel and Raul
to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.
Rubio has been quoted opposing the plan
ARMARIO, Associated Press Reporter, 12
[Christine, 12/9/12, “maintains standing with Cuban-Americans, Associated Press, lexis, Accessed:
7/5/13, ML]
Another factor that could influence Cuba policy is the emergence of leaders such as Sen. Marco
Rubio, R-Fla., a Cuban-American who has objected to Obama's Cuba travel expansion. Rubio has
said he will not support lifting the embargo until the Castro brothers retired leader Fidel and current
President Raul are gone, and Cuba releases all political prisoners and respects basic civil rights.
"Every U.S.-Cuba policy decision should be guided by the simple test of whether it helps free
political prisoners, stops the daily repression and paves the way for the people to express their will
through free and fair elections," Rubio said.
Rubio doesn’t want the embargo removed – perception of poor human rights
Senator Rubio, Republican-Florida, 10
[Marco, 5/5/10, Human Events, Interview with Marco Ruio, Lexis, accessed, 7/4/13, ML]
HE: As a corollary to that, we're hearing all along about people abandoning Gov. Crist right now. Do you
expect him to move to the left on key issues to try to get new support?
Rubio: I thought he was already there on many of them. The bottom line is that, with all due respect, and
hopefully this will change and he has time to change that, Gov. Crist's campaign has not been policybased. It's largely been personality-based and to some extent on personal attacks against me. He's spent
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 76
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
over a million dollars on personal attacks against me before switching races. I hope that we can have an
opportunity to have an issues- and ideas-based debate. It's important. It's what our people want and
deserve. I know the things that I stand for, whether that's limited government, free enterprise. These are
things that have made America exceptional and the American people and people of Florida ought to see
that reflected in this debate and in their next U.S. senator. I don't know what his ideas are going to be. It's
going to be up to him to outline those I guess. HE: When we spoke a year ago, we discussed Cuba.
When would you approve of lifting the economic embargo against Cuba?
Rubio: When Cuba joins the rest of the civilized world in how it treats its people. That is freeing political
prisoners, it means free and fair elections They can choose any form of government they like, but they
have to have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. The fundamental rights
that we believe are endowed to every human being by our Creator. That's the kind of country that I'm
interested in us having a relationship with. And the embargo serves as leverage for us to be able to
accomplish that. You have, as we speak right now, a number of dissidents and hunger strikes in Cuba.
And their brave wives are marching every Sunday. And they're being beaten, taunted, hassled and
harassed. These are women. They're called the women in white. They're providing an extraordinary
example of just how repressive this regime is and how it's on the wrong side of history.
HE: So I take it you mean the recognition of the end of the embargo has to come with the end of the
Castro brothers?
Rubio: Not only the end of the Castro brothers, but also political reform in the return of political
freedom to the people of Cuba. The embargo gives us leverage to negotiate that. Cuba trades with
every other country in the world. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. embargo is not the reason their
economy is failing. Their economy is failing because they've embraced a combination of socialism and
incompetence, which may be an oxymoron because they're both the same thing. The point being that I
would love for the United States to have a close economic relationship with a free Cuba. I think we're
going to see that very soon, God willing.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 77
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Rubio Key to the Agenda
Rubio has major influence in Congress
Allen, Politico Chief White House correspondent, & Vandehei, Politico co-founder,
12
[Mike and Jim, 12/4/12, Politico, “Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio’s makeovers”,
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/paul-ryan-and-marco-rubios-makeovers-84544.html, accessed:
7/4/13, ML]
While Congress dawdled this summer, Rubio, 41, assigned his policy experts to figure out ways to
help make the middle class wealthier — and add a dose of substance to the charismatic presidential
hopeful’s résumé. Reaching out to academics and think tanks to build Rubio’s network, the senator and
his staff developed a two-year reinvention project and an “upward mobility agenda,” including
programs like early childhood education, school choice and incentives for entrepreneurs. Those are some
of the proposals he’ll test-drive at the Kemp Foundation dinner, where he’ll receive the group’s second
leadership award. The first winner: Paul Ryan.
Rubio also plans new ideas on immigration, aimed not at broad citizenship but at creating a bigger
Hispanic middle class. “The answer,” Rubio will say in his after-dinner remarks, “is not to make rich
people poorer. The answer is to make poor people richer.” If he makes the sale in countless such
appearances over the next two years, he’ll begin a formal presidential campaign shortly after the midterm
elections of November 2014, Rubio sources tell us.
Ryan, 42, will kick off his own drive to redefine the party — and himself — as the pre-dinner keynote
speaker before 300-plus conservative faithful on the same stage, detailing his thinking on how people of
all classes can rise up economically and improve socially. Top Republicans tell us Ryan tried to push his
ideas for a more creative “war on poverty” during the presidential campaign but was muzzled by nervous
Nellies at Mitt Romney’s Boston headquarters who didn’t see an immediate political payoff. So Ryan
seethed when the “47 percent” tape emerged, convinced that the impact was worse because the campaign
had no record on issues relating to inclusion or poverty, exacerbating the out-of-touch image that the
hidden camera cemented.
Republicans are eager for both men to perform an image makeover on a party dominated by older,
straight, white men. Ironically, Romney’s double debacle of getting caught on tape lampooning the “47
percent” of voters who get government benefits, then blaming those “gift”-getters for his defeat, has
created an enormous opening for Rubio, Ryan and other 2016 hopefuls. Suddenly, even Sean Hannity
seems hungry for some change.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association and himself
a possibility for 2016 — told us that the need for fresh policies is urgent. “The rich can defend
themselves,” Jindal said. “It’s not about betraying our principles or becoming a second Democratic Party
but, rather, showing how our principles work to help real families, and connecting that to the American
dream.”
By our count, upward of 20 Republicans are giving strong consideration to running for president to set the
new GOP direction. Rubio and Ryan sit atop the list. But Jindal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Jeb
Bush have serious ambitions — and serious GOP cred.
In the next year, though, no two men in American politics will get more attention, have more power
and speak more prominently about the direction of the post-Romney GOP than Rubio and Ryan.
Rubio is now the party’s biggest draw. And Ryan’s post as House Budget Committee chairman keeps
him front and center in the fiscal fights dominating Congress. He is the policy pope for many, if not most,
House Republicans.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 78
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Rubio can influence Congress
Business Insider, 13
[1/3/13, “The 36 Most Powerful People Of 2012”, lexis, accessed: 7/4/13, ML]
Just two years into his first Senate term, Rubio has already made a name for himself as a rising star in
the Republican Party. The 41-year-old Cuban-American Senator became one of the most prominent
Republican voices during the 2012 campaign, garnering a lot of buzz as a possible VP pick for Romney.
In the aftermath of the election, Rubio's influence has continued to grow as the GOP attempts to
reshape its message to appeal to youth and Latino voters.
Rubio is key to influence immigration
Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune writer, 13
[Jan, 1/18/13, “Popular, GOP Plummetting, Congress Disdained”, Columbia Daily Tribune, lexis,
accessed: 7/4/13, ML]
*** On immigration reform: Attention Marco Rubio: Finally, our poll shows that for the first time a
majority of Americans (52%) favor allowing illegal immigrants who hold jobs to apply for legal status in
this country. That's the good news if you're a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. But here's
the bad news: There's a big difference by party. Democrats favor this by a 70%-28% margin. But
independents oppose it 54%-43%, and Republicans oppose it 65%-33%. These numbers explain why
Marco Rubio has spent so much time this week trying to sell his immigration plan to conservative
media. To truly speed up the politics of immigration, it's going to take a conservative like Rubio to
persuade other conservatives that this is the path forward.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 79
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Magnifier/AT – Link Turns
Link outweighs – embargo advocates have more influence than the plan’s
supporters
Karon, Time senior editor, 10
(Tony, 4/21/10, Time Magazine, “Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?”
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, Accessed 7/9/13)
And that has prompted a growing movement in the corridors of power to reconsider the policy. Once the
preserve of dedicated liberals and lefties, opposition to the U.S. embargo on Cuba these days is an
ever-expanding tent. The recent congressional effort to relax aspects of the embargo was led by
farm-state Republicans and echoed a growing consensus even inside the GOP. The National
Bipartisan Commission on Cuba, whose calls for a comprehensive review of U.S. policy have thus far
been rebuffed by President Clinton, includes not only 16 GOP Senators (and eight Democrats), but also
some of the GOP foreign policy heavyweights lined up by the Bush campaign, including former
Secretaries of State Kissinger, Schultz and Eagleburger. And that's hardly surprising, since ending the
embargo has long been advocated by groupings as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Vatican and, reportedly, the bulk of democracy activists still living in Cuba. While previous embargoes of
countries such as Iran and Iraq have had the support of most of the industrialized world, the only country
consistently backing Washington's Cuba policy is Israel. Yet, despite the burgeoning opposition,
advocates of the embargo continue to hold sway with the leadership of both parties on Capitol Hill ,
and with both presidential candidates. Elian's enduiring legacy, however, may be that he reopened a
national debate in the U.S. on the future of Cuba policy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 80
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Congress
Relaxation of the Cuban embargo has bipartisan support in Congress
Center for Diplomacy in the Americas 4-30-13
[“Members of Congress ask White House to expand Cuba travel policy,”
http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/members-of-congress-ask-white-house-to-expand-cubatravel-policy/ accessed 7-5-13 UR]
U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) today sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to
President Barack Obama, asking the Administration to expand its current policy for travel to Cuba.
The letter encourages President Obama to allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba, including
people-to-people travel, to be carried out under a general license.
“There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” said
Congressman Farr. “By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license, more
Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic
change and advance human rights.”
In 2009, President Obama announced Reaching Out to the Cuban People, a set of policy changes
that fully restored the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba and send them
unlimited remittances. This has resulted in the reunification of thousands of families and has provided
the capital for Cubans to take advantage of economic reforms in Cuba and start their own businesses.
In 2011, President Obama took another important step by reauthorizing purposeful travel for all
Americans, fostering meaningful people-to-people interaction between American and Cuban citizens. But
these trips require a specific license granted to specialized travel service providers. Unfortunately, the
licensing process has reportedly been expensive, slow, cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and –
in some cases cancellations- of trips that enable Americans to exercise their right to purposeful travel to
Cuba.
Earlier this year, Cuba removed the restrictions on most Cubans’ foreign travel, including travel to the
United States, a move that the United States and many in the international community had been pushing
for.
The letter calls upon the President to use his executive authority to included people-to-people travel
under a general license.
“A pragmatic policy of citizen diplomacy can be a powerful catalyst for democratic development in
Cuba,” said Farr. “This change is the next step in supporting a 21st century policy of engagement
in US-Cuba relations.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 81
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – GOP
Republicans love the plan
Vidal, On Two Shores author, 6/21/13 [William, On Two Shores (Cuba blog), “Conservatives
respond to BeyJey trip by slamming the Cuba Embargo”, http://ontwoshores.com/?p=2149, accessed:
7/5/13, ML]
A welcome highlight of the controversy over BeyJay’s trip to Cuba has been watching media
conservatives rail against the US embargo on Cuba like never before.
Geraldo Rivera of FOX News wrote an op-ed calling out the absurdity the travel ban:
Cuba is not Iran. It is 90 miles away, and its 11 million are related to our million and more. I’m sure
most were as pleased to see Beyoncé and Jay-Z go to Cuba as they were to see the Cuban people.
Tourism is not terrorism. It is the beginning of freedom.
Rivera later schooled the gang over at Fox & Friends on how to make friends and influence the Cuban
people:
“We’ve made friends with communist China. We do business with them,” [Rivera] added. “Vietnam –
we lost 50,000 soldiers and we have normal relations.”
“What if you had a relative rotting in prison there because they spoke up?” asked Brian Kilmeade.
“But the way to loosen them up is to expose them to freedom,” Rivera shot back.
“With Hollywood stars?” asked Gretchen Carlson incredulously.
“Jay-Z and Beyoncé showed the good life to millions of Cubans who will envy America as a result,”
asserted Rivera. “It was a harmless trip and the reaction was way over the top.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro, also of FOX News, dedicated the entire opening of her show to questioning the
travel ban and embargo, ultimately calling it a “charade”:
Fifty years later this embargo has accomplished nothing. Wouldn’t American influence and
American dollars put us in a more positive light as opposed to the image that Castro has created of
Americans? In the end it isn’t so much about that celebrity couple who chose to vacation on that pristine
island as it is about trying to make new friends in a world where we could certainly use a few more.
Finally, conservative kingmaker George Will declared on ABC’s This Week that the embargo no longer
makes sense (watch at 39:00 mark):
The Cuban embargo may have made a lot of sense during the Cold War. The Cold War is over,
and it is hard to think of a policy more firmly refuted by events than the policy of the embargo that
was supposed to weaken one of the, it turns out, most durable dictators in the world.
All further proof that calling for the lifting of travel and trade restrictions against Cuba is a bipartisan issue, and that the Cuba Lobby, which likes to slander anti-embargo advocates as liberal
useful idiots and Castro apologists, only represents itself, not conservative values nor the CubanAmerican community.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 82
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Oil
Oil drilling makes the plan more popular
Franks, Reuters, 8
[Jeff, June 12, NYT, “Cuban oil production could be a catalyst for a change in relations with U.S.,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/worldbusiness/12iht-cubaoil.4.13670441.html accessed 77-13 UR]
The embargo has withstood repeated legislative attempts to loosen its terms, including unsuccessful
bills in the U.S. Congress in 2006 to exempt oil companies.
But Kirby Jones, a consultant on Cuban business and founder of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association in
Washington, and who is against the embargo, said a big Cuba oil find would change the political
equation.
"This is the first time that maintaining the embargo actually costs the United States something," he
said. "And we need oil. We need it from wherever we can get it, and in this case it's 50 miles off our
coast."
An odd fact is that Cuba will be drilling 50 miles from the Florida Keys, or more than twice as close
as U.S. companies can get because of regulations protecting Florida's coast.
Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who has introduced bills in Congress to lift the
embargo for oil companies, said the environmental argument might be crucial because there was much
concern in Florida about potential oil spills.
"If there are going to be oil rigs off of Florida, I think most Americans would be more comfortable
if they were U.S. oil rigs, rather than Chinese for example," Flake said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 83
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Opposition
No political support for the embargo
Brush, MSN Money staff, 1/22/13
(Michael, MSN Money, “Time to invest in Cuba?” http://money.msn.com/investing/time-to-invest-incuba, Accessed 7/9/13)
2. Political support for the embargo is eroding. Another problem for embargo aficionados is that
younger Cuban Americans in Florida, the all-important next generation of voters, just aren't as
passionate about it as their parents and grandparents were. "When I lecture down there, they couldn't
care less about Castro and the embargo," says Roett. A recent poll by Florida International University
in Miami bears this out. It found that just 50% of Cuban-Americans still support the embargo, and
80% think it has failed. It's also worth noting that Obama got a lot more of the Cuban-American vote in
Florida in the 2012 election, despite the awareness that he is more willing to lift the embargo, says
Hidalgo. With their constituents defecting on the issue, congressional backers of the embargo may
be losing ground. "The Cuban vote in Florida is changing, thus sticking with the embargo doesn't
makes sense," believes Hidalgo.
Opposition to the plan is diminishing
Bandow, Cato Institute senior fellow, 12 (Doug, former special assistant to former US president
Ronald Reagan, 12/11/12, Cato Institute, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, Accessed 7/9/13)
The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential
candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is
a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal
generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne
Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a
change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more
sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit
polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little
more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans
born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after
liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida,
demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable.
For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in
recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at
least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was
probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become
more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American
embargo.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 84
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Unpopular with Cuban-Americans
Younger Cuban-Americans are increasingly open to US-Cuban economic
engagement
AP 6/21/13 [Associated Press, NPR, “Cuba, US Try Talking, But Face Many Obstacles,”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=194107378 accessed 7/3/13 UR]
Despite that rhetoric, many experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose
engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who
fled immediately after the 1959 revolution.
Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami
restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed
to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement.
Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12,
said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was
a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said.
Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be
good. "The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.
Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected
Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic
relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of
people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba.
"In general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic relations," said
Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of
perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of understanding
with the Cuban government."
Florida Rep. Castor and Cuban-American Democrats support lifting the embargo
Jackovics, Tampa Tribune, 4/9/13
[Ted, “Isolation is 'bad for the island of Cuba and it's not good for us,' Castor says,” Lexis, accessed
7/3/13 UR]
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor's three-day visit to Cuba last week reinforced her belief that overarching
U.S. policy change is required to achieve benefits for U.S. and Cuban interests alike.
"If America continues to isolate Cuba, we are not going to hasten change," the Tampa Democrat
said. "It's bad for the island of Cuba and it's not good for us."
Castor said Monday she would urge Secretary of State John Kerry to recommend that President
Barack Obama end Cuba's listing on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism as a major step in
that direction. That decision is expected within weeks.
"Cuba is changing its economic system," Castor said. "It was an amazing experiment in communism
that did not work."
But even as Cuba's government provides Cubans new rights to own property, buy and sell cars, and
establish co-operatives, the country cannot continue to be repressive, Castor said, pointing to human
rights violations that provide political fodder for critics of normalizing U.S.-Cuba relations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 85
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Plan is politically popular Cuban Americans
Hinderdael, Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs, 11
[Klaas, June 11, BCJIA, “Breaking the Logjam: Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved
Leadership,” http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true accessed 77-13 UR]
In the wake of a markedly diminished strategic threat from the Cuban island after the end of the Cold
War, domestic political goals trumped other goals in terms of setting Cuba policy, particularly during
election years. Nonetheless, legislative momentum for engaging Cuba has picked up decidedly, even
as some presidents have lagged behind. This momentum has coincided with a slow shift in public
opinion and demographics that make ending the embargo and engaging Cuba popular amongst
both the majority of American voters, as well as the majority of the Cuban-American constituency.
Two events in the late 1990s have often been pointed to as significant turning points in the political views
and weight of Cuban-American voters. First, many traveled to Cuba for the 1998 papal visit, and
embraced Pope John Paul II’s call for “Cuba to open to the world, and the world to open to
Cuba.”40 then, two years later, the Elián González episode of 2000 allowed for a shift dubbed by Daniel
Erikson the “Elián meets the China syndrome.”41 With the majority of Americans calling for Elián to be
reunited with his father in Cuba, a position that anti-Castro Cuban-Americans opposed vehemently, the
Cuban-American community, by taking such a hard-line stance, lost some of its legitimacy in the
American political system. Furthermore, a harsh Cuba policy stood in stark contrast to a simultaneous
broadening of America’s economic and diplomatic ties with China.
Polls over the last decade have revealed the dramatic shift in the views of Cuban-Americans. They
indicate that, while in 1997, only 22 percent of Miami-Dade County Cuban-Americans favored
ending the embargo, by 2004, that percentage had risen to 34 percent, and by December 2008 to 55
percent (in 2008, 65 percent also supported ending restrictions on travel and remittances).42 these
statistics indicate that Obama’s positions in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election may not have
been such a bad political strategy after all. Furthermore, we should expect to see politicians increasingly
catering to these beliefs as they continue to gain political expediency.
Perhaps more significantly, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum support significant changes
in Cuba policy, from relaxing travel and remittance restrictions to opening up diplomatic relations. They
also believe that the island provides little threat to the United States, and that engagement is the most
likely policy to lead Cuba towards democratic reform. An April 2009 World Public opinion poll drew the
following conclusions from republican (r) and Democrat (D) pollsters:43
In terms of the US embargo policy, just days before the World Public opinion poll was released, separate
Gallup and ABC polls showed that approximately 55 percent of Americans believe the embargo should
be ended, with 35 percent believing it should be continued, and the rest unsure.44 Due to such strong
public support for a shift in Cuba policy, the risks of making a drastic shift in the country’s Cuba policies
are decreasing rapidly. Leaders willing to promote such a transformation stand to reap significant political
gains.
A steady demographical shift in the Cuban-American population also makes such a stance politically
pragmatic. As experts have noted, first generation Cuban-Americans, traditionally more linked to Cuba
policy hardliners, “are retreating from the political stage, if for no reason other than age.”45 In contrast,
later-generation immigrants are no longer single-issue voters, made particularly evident during the 2008
election, as the majority of Cuban-American voters agreed with Obama’s Cuba policy, but still voted for
Senator John McCain.
In fact, Florida International University (FIU) polls show that on a variety of issues, including ending
restrictions on remittances and travel, ending the embargo, and reestablishing diplomatic relations,
there is a 15 to 20 percent hike in support for these policies among those who immigrated between
1980 and 1998, as opposed to earlier immigrants. There is an additional increase of 5 percent for those
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 86
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
who came to America after 1998.46 Clearly, as these demographics continue to provide rising support for
engagement and ending the embargo, politicians should and will attempt to shift Cuba policy accordingly.
Plan is increasingly popular with Cuban-American voters
Iglesias, US Navy Commander, 12 Army War College Publication [Carlos, March 10, US
Army War College, “United States Security Policy Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560408 accessed 7-7-13 UR]
Domestically, the traditional third rail of Cuban-America politics has also just recently been deenergized. Historically the exile community has been a bulwark against any Cuba policy that loosened
universal values attainment. However, a major poll of registered Cuban-American voters in 2008
reflected a reshuffling of priorities. The Florida International University poll showed for that first
time since polling began, the majority of respondents favored normalization of diplomatic relations
with the island.103 Even many in the older and more hard-line generations have broken with “first
wave conservatives.”104 This shift of collective opinions points to a new perspective that attainment of
those values has to come from within the country and the U.S.’s role is best played through
“engagement with Cuba in order to help the Cuban people create the conditions for democratic
change from within.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 87
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Guantanamo Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 88
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Congress
Legislative requirements to closing Guantanamo means it will require a huge
amount of Obama’s political capital
Huffington Post, 5-8-13
[Newstex, “Guantanamo’s Collapse,” Lexis, accessed 7-6-13 UR]
Fixing Guantanamo -- which is what Obama clearly wants --- will require him to take risky unilateral
action and dedicate a great deal of political capital.
First, Obama will need to stick his neck out by restarting the transfer process under the national
security waiver provisions in current law. If he believes that the stain of Guantanamo is truly harming
our national security, and the risk of sending some detainees abroad is not too severe, then duty requires
him to approve some transfers. To do this, he will also need some help from allies in the Middle East
or elsewhere that have facilities that can handle these individuals and programs that might make
resettlement a legitimate option. If the Administration is unwilling to take the political heat for
authorizing transfers, then it has to admit that it no longer intends to even attempt to close
Guantanamo.
Second, the Administration needs to clearly state where it intends to incarcerate those detainees
who are either convicted in military commissions or will be held indefinitely under the law of war.
Closing Guantanamo will be beneficial, because it would eliminate having a concentrated mass of
detainees in one place, where they can take joint action and focus the attention of the world. Building a
new detention facility for all of the same people in the United States will achieve nothing, as it will
quickly be labeled Guantanamo North and cause all the same problems we have currently with
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Instead, we could disburse the population to other detention facilities, including
military jails and super-max prisons in the United States where the detainees will be isolated and quietly
reach old age over the next decades . The so-called blind sheik - Omar Abdel-Rahman - who was
convicted of conspiring to bomb multiple sites in New York City, is serving a life sentence in a medium
security medical prison in anonymity less than 25 miles from my office. Who knew?
Finally, we need to come to terms with creating a solid legal framework for the extremely rare cases
when dangerous individuals are captured, but for a variety of reasons, cannot be tried in our
criminal justice system or military commissions. There are many proposals for how this could be
accomplished in a constitutional manner, but it will require hard bipartisan legislative work and a depoliticization of the detainee issue. It is hard to see how this might occur in our current political
posture, but perhaps this would be a worthy project after the 2014 elections for a lame duck president and
members of Congress who recognize that our current terrorist detention system is both unsustainable and
damaging to our national security.
Both sides of congress want to keep Guantanamo
Cole, Georgetown University Law Center professor, 13
[David, 2/5/13, NYT, “It’s Congress’ Fault That It’s Still Open”,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/09/guantanamo-10-years-later/its-congress-fault-thatguantanamo-is-still-open, accessed: 7/6/13, ML]
Congress has effectively frozen in place one of the most counterproductive aspects of our national
security policy – and given Al Qaeda just what it wants.
Yet three years after Obama promised to close the most infamous prison in the world today, and 10
years after the first detainee was brought there, Guantánamo remains open, with no foreseeable shelf
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 89
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
life date. Why? The principal culprit is Congress. Adopting a short-sighted “not in my backyard”
attitude, Congress has barred Obama from transferring any detainees to the United States, not even
to stand trial in a criminal court, and has put onerous conditions on their being transferred to any
other country. These measures have effectively frozen in place one of the most counterproductive
aspects of our national security policy – and given Al Qaeda just what it wants.
As long as some of the men at Guantánamo remain lawfully detained as enemy fighters in an ongoing
armed conflict, they have to be held somewhere, so realistically Guantánamo can be closed only if we can
transfer them here or to a third country. But few members of Congress have the courage to stand up to
fear-mongering about holding the men here, or are willing to risk the possibility that a detainee
transferred abroad might take action against us in the future. They don’t seem troubled at all about
keeping men locked up who the military has said could be released, or about keeping open an institution
that jeopardizes our security. In the meantime, Congress has assured that the United States will
continue to be better known around the world for Guantánamo Bay than for the Statue of Liberty.
Congress hates the plan
Rosenberg, senior journalist, currently with the McClatchy News, 12
[Carol, 1/9/12, Miami Herald, “Congress, rules keep Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/09/135179/congress-rule-keep-obama-from.html#storylink=cpy,
accessed: 7/6/13, ML]
The responsibility lies not so much with the White House but with Congress, which has thwarted
President Barack Obama’s plans to close the detention center, which the Bush administration opened
on Jan. 11, 2002, with 20 captives.
Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing
trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to
hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantánamo North.
The latest defense bill adopted by Congress moved to mandate military detention for most future al Qaida
cases. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of passage, and then Obama signed it into law
with a “signing statement” that suggested he could lawfully ignore it.
On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives
at Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at
Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign
country could safely give them a new start.
But Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since
Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a
national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit
the release of a detainee to another country.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 90
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – GOP
Plan is massively unpopular with House Republicans – they empirically block all
new legislation
McAuliff, Huffington Post, 6-14-13 [Michael, “Guantanamo Bay To Stay Open As House Blocks
Bill To Close Infamous Prison,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/guantanamo-bayclose_n_3438347.html accessed 7-6-13 UR]
A worsening hunger strike and a fresh plea by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay
prison fell on deaf ears in Congress Friday, as the House of Representatives voted to keep the
increasingly infamous jail open.
The House voted to make it harder for Obama to begin shifting inmates, adding a restriction to the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 that bars any of the roughly 56 prisoners who have
been cleared by military and intelligence officials to be sent to Yemen from being transferred there
for one year. Some 30 other Gitmo inmates of the 166 kept there have also been cleared for release.
"The Defense Department should not transfer detainees to Yemen because they represent some of the
most dangerous terrorists known in the world," said Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who sponsored the
fresh ban on shipping anyone out of Gitmo.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered a competing amendment to create a plan to close Gitmo,
found the new restriction especially ironic, noting that federal authorities believe the Yemeni detainees
are safe enough to be set free.
"Not everybody that we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the very
dangerous terrorists that we thought they were," Smith said, adding that continuing to hold them -- at a
facility costing $1.6 million a year for each inmate -- was not sensible.
"Determining that if there is any minimimal threat whatsoever we're simply going to hold them forever is,
well, quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values to say we're going to hold somebody
indefinitely -- I gather forever -- because we think there might possibly be some risk," Smith said. "That's
not the way the Constitution is supposed to work."
Walorski's amendment passed, 236 to 188. Smith's, also backed by Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Jerry
Nadler (D-N.Y.), failed 174 to 249 after Republicans argued that it was simply too dangerous to send
terrorsim suspects to the United States.
"These terrorist detainees pose a very real danger to our security in America. They mean us real harm,"
said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), a veteran of the Iraq war who called closing Gitmo "appeasement."
"Who are these detainees? They are not innocent goat herders swept up by marauding United States
military, of which I was a part, and of which I detained numerous potential terrorists," said Rep. Tom
Cotton (R-Ark.), referring to his service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) argued that moving the prisoners to the United States would paint targets
for terrorists "on every elementary school, every shopping mall, every small business" in the area where
they end up being housed.
"It's important that we come together, unified, and send a message to the president," Forbes said.
"We may not be able to stop every terrorist from coming to U.S. soil, but we can stop these
terrorists."
Smith countered that there are already more than 300 terrorists jailed in the United States.
"We have Ramzi Yousef. We have the blind sheik [Omar Abdel-Rahman]," Smith said, referring to the
two 1993 World Trade Center bombing masterminds. "We have some of the most notorious terrorists in
the world housed here already, safely and securely."
The House votes run contrary not just to what the president asked for, but also to the hopes of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, which voted Thursday in its version of the NDAA to ease restrictions
on transferring prisoners.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 91
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Republicans hate the plan
Bobic, assistant editor of Talking Points Memo, 11 [Igor, 5/11/13, TPM, “Senate Republicans
Vow to Keep Guantanamo Bay Open”, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/senate-republicansvow-to-keep-guantanamo-bay-open.php, accessed: 7/6/13, ML]
In response to the Obama administration’s renewed efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay prison,
Senate Republicans introduced legislation on Wednesday that would codify the detention facility as
the primary location or current and future detainees.
“Attorney General Holder and President Obama: Guantanamo Bay is not going to close,” Senator
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a press conference introducing the bill. “I respect Holder, but let me say
categorically there is no pathway forward when it comes to closing Guantanamo in the foreseeable
future.”
The state-of-the-art military facility has long been a focal point of intense domestic and international
criticism over U.S. interrogation practices and indefinite detention. President Obama pledged to close the
prison via executive order upon taking office, but his plans have been stymied from the start by tough
opposition in Congress. The legislation, dubbed the “Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act,”
would prohibit funding for construction of additional detainment facilities in the United States and restrict
the transfer of detainees to foreign countries.
Republicans pushed back against criticism that the prison’s clouded past posed a threat to the security of
the country, arguing that Guantanamo remained a vital national security asset, especially for intelligence.
“Whatever image problems that linger around Guantanamo Bay pale in comparison to the risk of not
having a prison,” Graham said. “The options are getting limited for our special forces. Without a jail,
they are pushed to kill people that would they would otherwise like to capture.”
Republicans oppose giving back Guantanamo
Herb, staff writer for the The Hill, 6/22/13
[Jeremy, covering national security and defense, The Hill, “Obama’s Guantánamo push hits wall of
resistance in Congress”, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/307181-obamas-gitmopush-hits-wall-of-resistance-in-congress#ixzz2YKCWtX4X, accessed: 7/6/13, ML]
Obama announced to great fanfare last month that he was restarting the effort to close the prison by
transferring detainees cleared for release. He followed up this week by appointing a new envoy at the
State Department to focus on the effort.
But Congress moved quickly to thwart Obama’s plans. The House voted against lifting restrictions
on moving detainees to the United States and approved an amendment that prevents the president from
using funds to return some detainees to Yemen.
Meanwhile, an amendment from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) that would have lifted the restrictions
on transfers from Guantanamo was rejected, with 21 Democrats and all but two Republicans voting
against it.
“It’s a very big problem, I think a lot of [lawmakers] would like to not have to think about it,” said
Andrea Prasow, communications director for Human Rights Watch. “I find it incredibly depressing that’s
the state of our politics right now.”
Guantánamo became a campaign issue in 2010 after Obama first attempted to close the detention facility
and hold a trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.
Smith said Republicans have been successful at tying support of Guantánamo with being tough on
terror, which he said was false.
“The Republicans have done a pretty masterful job of using scare tactics,” Smith said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 92
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
“Republicans have equated the two and said if you’re for closing Guantánamo you don’t take the
threat [of terrorism] seriously. I don’t think that’s a fair equation, but that’s what they’ve put out there,
and that’s what makes some people nervous.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 93
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Senate Democrats
Closing Guantanamo is extremely unpopular with key Senate Democrats
Cassata, Associated Press, 7-5-13
[Donna, “Obama's toughest sell on Guantanamo: Senate Dems,” Lexis, accessed 7-6-13 UR]
President Barack Obama's hardest sell in his renewed push to close the U.S. detention center at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be members of his own party moderate Senate Democrats facing
tough re-election bids next year in the strongly Republican South.
Obama has stepped up the pressure to shutter the naval facility, driven in part by his revised
counterterrorism strategy and the 4-month-old stain of the government force-feeding Guantanamo
prisoners on hunger strikes to prevent them from starving to death. Civil liberties groups and liberals have
slammed Obama for failing to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to close the installation and find another
home for the 166 terror suspects being held there indefinitely.
Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have repeatedly resisted the president's attempts to
close the facility, arguing that the prisoners are too dangerous to be moved to U.S. soil, that
Guantanamo is a perfectly adequate prison and that the administration has failed to offer a viable
alternative.
White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco lobbied House members in advance of several
votes last month to no avail. The House delivered strong votes to keep Guantanamo open and to
prevent Obama from transferring detainees to Yemen. Separately, the president's recent appointment of a
special envoy on Guantanamo, Cliff Sloan, has met with a collective shrug on Capitol Hill.
In the coming weeks, the Senate will again vote on the future of Guantanamo. All signs point to a
bipartisan statement to keep the facility open despite a recent vow to end detention at the installation
by two national security leaders Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
"When you go out, you talk to average Americans about it, they want to keep them there, they want to
keep the terrorists there, they don't necessarily want to hold them here," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., a
fierce proponent of keeping Guantanamo open.
Ayotte, who plans to push legislation on a sweeping defense policy bill later this summer, is likely to
attract support from Republicans as well as several Democrats looking ahead to tight Senate races next
year in Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. Votes on the detention center will give these
Democrats a high-profile chance to split with a president who is extremely unpopular in parts of
the South.
Consider Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, one of the most vulnerable incumbents in next year's
congressional elections.
Last November, he was one of nine Democrats to vote for prohibiting the use of any money to transfer
terror suspects from Guantanamo, backing an amendment by Ayotte. The Senate easily passed the
measure, 54-41, as part of the defense policy bill.
Last month, a potential Republican challenger to Pryor, Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton, was one of a handful
of speakers during House debate on Guantanamo. Obama is pushing to transfer approved detainees there
are 86 to their home countries and lift a ban on transfers to Yemen. Fifty-six of the 86 are from Yemen.
Cotton, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, pleaded with his colleagues to "ensure that terrorists at
Guantanamo Bay do not escape back onto the battlefronts of the war on terror."
Asked recently whether he favors keeping Guantanamo opened or closed, Pryor said simply, "Open."
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat who voted last year to keep the facility open,
indicated she's unlikely to change her position.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 94
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
"Honestly, I have mixed feelings about it," she said in a recent interview. "First of all, it's hard to imagine
that people should be detained indefinitely without formal charges being brought. On the other hand, you
know, some of the people there are potential serious threats to national security."
Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who faces re-election next year, also voted with
Pryor and Landrieu to keep Guantanamo open. Her office had no comment on how she might vote later
this summer.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 95
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Public
Massive public and political opposition to the plan
Catalini, National Journal political writer, 13
[Michael, 5/30/13, National Journal, “Political Barriers Stand Between Obama and Closing Guantanamo
Facility”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/political-barriers-stand-between-obama-and-closingguantanamo-facility-20130503, accessed: 7/6/13, ML]
The last time President Obama tried to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Congress
stopped him abruptly. The Senate did what it rarely does: It voted in bipartisan fashion, blocking his
attempt at funding the closure.
Four years later, and the political barriers that blocked the president from closing the camp that now
houses 166 detainees are as immovable as ever. Moving the prisoners to facilities in the U.S., a solution
the administration suggested, proved to be a political minefield in 2009. Most Americans oppose closing
the base, according to a polls, and congressional leaders have balked at taking action.
The Cuban camp is grabbing headlines again because of a hunger strike among the detainees. Nearly 100
have stopped eating, and the military is forcing them to eat by placing tubes through their noses, the
Associated Press reported. The president reconfirmed his opposition to the camp, responding to a
question about the recent hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay with regret in his voice.
“Well, it is not a surprise to me that we've got problems in Guantanamo, which is why, when I was
campaigning in 2007 and 2008 and when I was elected in 2008, I said we need to close Guantanamo. I
continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo,” he said.
Obama blamed his failure to follow through on a campaign promise on lawmakers. “Now, Congress
determined that they would not let us close it,” he said. Despite Obama’s desire to close the base and
his pledge this week to “go back to this,” he touched on a political reality: Lawmakers are not inclined to
touch the issue.
"The president stated that the reason Guantanamo has not closed was because of Congress. That's
true," Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters last month, declining to elaborate.
The stakes for Obama on this issue are high when it comes to his liberal base, who would like to see him
display the courage of his convictions and close the camp. But the political will is lacking, outside a small
contingent of lawmakers, including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and five other liberal Democrats who
sided with Obama in 2009, and left-leaning opinion writers.
Congressional Democrats, unlike Obama, will have to face voters again. And closing the camp is
deeply unpopular. A Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2012 showed that 70 percent of
Americans wanted to keep the camp open to detain “terrorist suspects,” and in a 2009 Gallup Poll, a
majority said they would be upset if it shut down. In 2009, the Senate voted 90-6 to block the
president’s efforts at closing the camp. Obama had signed an order seeking to close the detention center,
but the Senate’s vote denied the administration the $80 million needed to fund the closure.
Closing the camp in Cuba and bringing the detainees into the United States grates against the political
sensibilities of many lawmakers. Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who served as Reid’s spokesman at
the time, remembers the debate very well.
“I'm still not sure that there's much of an appetite among Democrats on the Hill to try and deal
with this issue once and for all,” Manley said in an interview.
Public pressure makes it politically unpopular to shut down
Reilly, Huffington Post, 13
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 96
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
[Ryan J., covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, Huffington Post, 2-16-13, “Obama's
Guantanamo Is Never Going To Close, So Everyone Might As Well Get Comfortable
“,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/16/obama-guantanamo_n_2618503.html, accessed: 7/6/13,
ML]
Today, however, the detention center at Guantanamo appears less likely than ever to close. There are
166 people currently imprisoned, down from a high of 684 in 2003. But those who remain are likely to do
so indefinitely. Effectively banned from the continental U.S. by Congress, disowned by their home
countries and unwelcome pretty much everywhere else, they have no place to go.
In addition to the seven Guantanamo detainees currently facing charges -- including the five charged in
relation to the 9/11 attacks -- 24 may face charges in the future. Three current detainees have already been
convicted in military tribunals: one was sentenced to life in prison, one is scheduled to be released
pending testimony in another case and one has had his sentencing delayed for four years.
Of the rest, however, the U.S. has designated 86 detainees for release but can't actually set them free.
Thirty are from Yemen, and the U.S. won't send them back there while it remains a hotbed of terrorism.
No country is willing to accept the others. And it's a political nonstarter to release them into the U.S.
In 2010, Obama's Guantanamo Task Force determined that another 46 were “too dangerous to transfer but
not feasible for prosecution.” And so they remain stuck here, in limbo.
Obama has periodically reiterated his intention to close the detention center, most recently during an
appearance on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart in October. But the public pressure on him to do so
has largely died down, as tales of detainee abuse at the hands of CIA interrogators fade into the past and
the media turns its attention to new fronts in the war on terrorism, such as the administration's drone
program.
The truth is that nobody is really in a hurry to close Guantanamo. Defense attorneys, whose ultimate
goal is to keep their clients alive, certainly aren’t in a rush, and have adopted a strategy of throwing up
procedural objections that often slow the court’s already glacial pace. Prosecutors, anxious to avoid any
possible legal challenges that could come up on appeal, are moving deliberately to make sure they’re
dotting every “i” and crossing every “t.” Last month, the Obama administration shuttered the State
Department office tasked with planning Guantanamo's closure.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 97
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Congress
Bipartisan Congressional support for the plan is growing with Obama’s push
Metzker, Inter Press Service, 6-26-13
[Jared, “U.S.: RIGHTS ADVOCATES SEE PROGRESS TOWARD CLOSING GUANTANAMO,”
Lexis, accessed 7-6-13 UR]
Groups promoting human rights here are "cautiously optimistic" that U.S. President Barack
Obama's renewed pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be fulfilled.
That optimism is due in part to the language of this year's proposed U.S. National Defence
Authorisation Act (NDAA), a massive annual appropriations bill that funds much of the U.S. military
and is currently being debated in Congress.
"It feels like there is momentum building toward achieving a bipartisan consensus," Dixon Osburn,
director of the law and security program for Human Rights First, a Washington advocacy group,
told IPS. "I'm certainly more optimistic on this than I have been for the last several years."
In its current form, the 2014 NDAA would give the executive branch, through the secretary of defence,
greater authority to remove detainees from the prison, either to transfer them to other facilities or to
release them altogether. It would also unblock transfers of detainees to the United States.
The NDAA recently passed through the Senate Armed Service Committee with the provisions
related to Guantanamo left intact. These provisions, which would help pave the way for an eventual
shutdown of the prison, are expected to be the subject of fierce debate when the Senate votes on the full
bill sometime in the coming months.
The current push to close the controversial detention centre is being spearheaded by a renewed
pledge made by Obama in late April. At that time, the president spoke in no uncertain terms against the
continued existence of the facility, which he had originally pledged to close down at the start of his first
term, in 2009.
"It's not sustainableathe notion that we're going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man's
land in perpetuity," Obama stated in April, noting that U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been or
are being wound down. "The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have
not been tried - that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop."
Since that renewed call, powerful members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have
come out forcefully in favor of supporting Obama's efforts to close down the prison. Earlier this
month, Senators John McCain and Dianne Feinstein (the former a Republican and the latter a
Democrat) joined White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on a trip to Guantanamo,
afterward releasing a statement advocating its termination.
"We continue to believe that it is in our national interest to end detention at Guantanamo, with a
safe and orderly transition of the detainees to other locations," the statement noted. "We intend to
work, with a plan by Congress and the administration together, to take the steps necessary to make that
happen."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 98
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Aid
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 99
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Cuba Aid Link – Aid Scrutinized
Aid to hostile countries is highly scrutinized – ensuring politicization of the plan
Congressional Documents and Publications, 6/27/13
[Quoting Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican Representative from Florida, “Ecuador's Cancellation of Trade
Pact and Offer of $23 Million to U.S. for "Human Rights Training" is Laughable, Says Ros-Lehtinen,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the Middle East and North
Africa Subcommittee, made the following statement regarding Ecuador's decision to cancel the
renewal of its trade pact with the United States and its offer of $23 million to provide human rights
training to the U.S. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:
"Due to the fact that Congress has strongly signaled its reluctance to renew the trade preferences with
Ecuador, Rafael Correa saw the writing on the wall and has decided to cancel our trade deal. This
unilateral act is further proof that Ecuadorian leader does not want close ties with the United States
and only wishes to sabotage our bilateral relationship in order to save face following pressure from
our government for Correa to refuse asylum to Edward Snowden.
"Then as if to add insult to injury, Correa has also reportedly offered the U.S. $23 million for 'human
rights training.' This is perhaps the most laughable move by Correa to date, as it is he and his
government who are in need of training in the protection and respect of fundamental basic human
rights and democratic freedoms. This, after all, comes from the mini-Chavez who earlier this year
launched an international campaign to weaken the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
and who has consistently attempted to silence free speech and the independent media. I urge the Obama
Administration to send a clear message to Correa that his ill-considered actions will not go without
consequences and reexamine all foreign aid that goes directly to this reckless government."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 100
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Venezuela Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 101
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Evidence Assumes Chavez
Relations with Venezuela face rocky road—Maduro will continue Chavez’s
controversial policies
CNN Wire 3/6/13
(Elise Labott, CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter, March 6th 2013, CNN Wire, “U.S.-Venezuela relations
likely to remain tense after Chavez,” Lexis, Accessed 7/5/13, JC)
But in the words of one senior official, the outreach to Caracas has been a "rocky road." Talks have
been short on substance and never left U.S. officials with the feeling Venezuela was interested in
mending fences.
Maduro's first news conference, a good portion of which was devoted to railing against the United
States, was not very encouraging. As he prepares to stand in upcoming elections to replace Chavez,
Maduro's anti-American rhetoric is dismissed in the United States as political jockeying to shore up his
political base.
This tried-and-true method of using America as straw man worked for Chavez, which is why U.S.
officials acknowledge that the campaign season not be the best time to break new ground or expect
tangible progress. Officials say they will continue to speak out in favor of a more productive relationship
between the two countries, but the ball, officials say, is firmly in Venezuela's court.
"The opportunities are not there yet for the U.S. to engage" says Carl Meacham of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies. "For the next month or so, Maduro has to show he is even more
Chavez than Chavez was. That means he is going to be more anti-American, more anti-capitalist,
more anti-systemic. As far as a rapprochement, I don't see it coming anytime soon."
How Venezuela conducts those elections will be a major test. For years Washington had accused Chavez
and his supporters of abusing the electoral system by intimidating opposition and controlling the media
during his 14-year rule. Now, the United States has made clear it expects a free and fair election in
accordance with Venezuela's Constitution and charters.
While Venezuela's relationship with the United States revolved around Chavez, it is unlikely his
death will dramatically affect ties in the near term. If, as expected, Maduro wins the presidency, the
new boss will likely be the same as the old one.
"Chavez's supporters and their Chavismo ideological movement were dealt a blow with the death of their
charismatic leader, but his ministers have been preparing for this transition, and the challenge to all
sides will be measured in weeks and months, not days" said Dan Restrepo, who served as an adviser to
Obama at the National Security Council during his first term.
With crime at an all-time high, continued drug-trafficking and a faltering oil sector, Meacham says the
new Venezuelan government will be looking inward for the foreseeable future.
"The U.S. doesn't want to be in a situation where it is viewed at all as getting involved in domestic
affairs of Venezuela," he says. "If Maduro wins, he will be trying to keep the focus on domestic issues,
and that could put the resolve of Chavismo to the test. And that could mean the hardest days
between the U.S. and Venezuela is not behind us, but ahead of us."
Relations are just as divisive now as they were with Chavez in power
Global Post 5/2/13
[Girish Gupta, Staff Writer, May 2nd 2013, “5 signs Venezuela-US relations are still rocky after Chavez,”
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/venezuela/130501/signs-venezuela-uswashington-rocky-relations, Accessed 7/4/13, CB]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 102
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
CARACAS, Venezuela — Washington remains the only major government that has not yet recognized
the results of Venezuela’s Apr. 14 vote, which election officials here said showed a razor-thin win by
Nicolas Maduro.
For Maduro, it seems, there’s no love lost. “Take your eyes off Venezuela, [US Secretary of State]
John Kerry,” he said on state television. “We don’t care about your recognition.”
His mentor Hugo Chavez was famous for hours-long televised verbal thrashings against the US
“imperialists,” even as the superpower became chief buyer of Venezuela’s state-owned oil.
Chavez's vitriol climaxed before the United Nations in New York when, a day after a speech by thenPresident George W. Bush, he said: “The devil came here yesterday. … It smells of sulfur still."
Now, with Maduro in charge, many are watching for the same fiery language.
What the world is seeing may be somewhat confusing: Venezuela’s government has locked up and
kicked out alleged American spies on the one hand, and offered conciliatory messages to
Washington on the other. After the country's disputed election, officials agreed to a partial vote
recount one minute, but lawmakers got in fistfights with the opposition the next.
Perhaps what we’re seeing is a nuanced style that Maduro, a 50-year-old former foreign minister,
will employ to carry on the late Comandante’s socialist movement.
Whatever it is, there are signs that Washington and Caracas' relations are in for a rocky road. Here
are a few of them.
1. The expulsion: Just hours before Maduro solemnly announced Chavez’s death, the government
expelled two US diplomats, accusing them of attempting to destabilize the country. Here he is (in
Spanish) making the announcement.
Less than a week later, Washington expelled two Venezuelan diplomats in a tit-for-tat move. The
countries have not had ambassadorial-level links since 2010.
Political polarization over Venezuela is increasing despite Chavez’s death
Schultz, The International writer, 3/17/13
(Kylie, The International, “The Rocky U.S.-Venezuela Relationship: What Both Countries Could Learn,”
http://www.theinternational.org/articles/370-the-rocky-us-venezuela-relationship-wh, Accessed 7/9/13)
While the United States sent a representative, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the Obama administration
itself offered no condolences. “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United
States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive
relationship with the Venezuelan government,” said a statement released by the White House. “As
Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that
promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.” Criticized by many Chavez
supporters for its unsympathetic and, some claim, contemptible tone, the White House statement and
the reactions it has elicited are representative of the divide between the United States and
Venezuela which emerged during Chavez’s presidency. The influence and standing of the United
States in Latin America has decreased in recent years as domestic inequality and political
polarization in America rise . There seem but few signs that Chavez’s death will spark a shift in
U.S.-Venezuelan relations. As Venezuela enters into the post-Chavez era with a struggling economy,
high inflation, and some of the worst crime rates in the world, why do both countries continue to
demonize one another?
Chavez’s successor only magnifies the controversy
Washington Post 3/6/13
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 103
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
(Washington Post Opinions, “A misguided U.S. strategy for Venezuela,”
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-06/opinions/37497866_1_nicolas-maduro-apartments-andappliances-henrique-capriles, Accessed 7/9/13)
ANTICIPATING THE death of Hugo Chavez, the Obama administration began reaching out
months ago to his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro, in the hope of bettering U.S.-Venezuelan
relations. On Tuesday, that strategy absorbed a body blow : Hours before revealing that Mr.
Chavez had died of cancer, Mr. Maduro tried to blame the United States for his illness, and he
expelled two U.S. military attaches on charges of “proposing destabilizing plans” to the armed
forces. So much for the “reset” with Caracas. The ludicrous and crude propaganda launched by
Mr. Maduro was a sign that Mr. Chavez’s successors will be more thuggish and less politically
adept than he was — and, if anything, more inclined to scapegoat the United States and
Venezuela’s democratic opposition for the horrendous problems the caudillo leaves behind.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 104
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Engagement
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 105
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Flip Flop
Plan’s unpopular for a laundry list of reasons, and it’s a flip flop for Obama
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service specialist in Latin American affairs, 13
(Mark P., 1/10/13, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, Accessed 7/9/13)
U.S. Policy The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier
of foreign oil to the United States, but there has been significant friction with the Chávez
government. For several years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights,
Venezuela’s military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its relations with Cuba and Iran, its
efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries, and the use of
Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces. Declining Venezuelan
cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern. Since 2005,
Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama ) as a country
that has failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the De partment of
State has prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 106
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capitala – Republicans
Political inertia in Congress – right will criticize US-Venezuela relations because of
Chavez’s legacy
Lobe, Inter Press Service 3/7/13
(Jim Lobe, March 7th 2013, Inter Press Service, “U.S.: Hoping for some rapprochement after Chávez,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/5/13, JC)
At the same time, however, Shifter warned that the White House itself will likely move very slowly, so
as not to provoke right-wingers in Congress who greeted Chávez's long-awaited demise with
undiluted enthusiasm.
They called, among other things, for the administration to retaliate for the two expulsions, a step which
State Department officials said they were reviewing Wednesday.
"Hugo Chávez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear," said Rep. Ed Royce,
who has just succeeded the fiercely anti-Chávez and anti-Castro Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen as chair of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee. "His death dents the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South
America. Good riddance to this dictator."
"The problem on the U.S. side of the bilateral relationship is going to be some members of Congress
who will be very critical of any sign of rapprochement between the administration and Maduro,"
Shifter said. "And they're not going to want to fight with members of Congress over Venezuela. So
they're going to try to explore these openings but will be quite cautious and careful about doing so."
Republicans see engagement as acceptance of corrupt democracy – causes GOP
backlash
Ros-Lehtinen, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chair, 3/14/13
[Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican, Florida,, March 14th 2013, The Washington Times, “ROSLEHTINEN: Venezuela after Chavez: What comes next?,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/venezuela-after-chavez-what-comes-next/,
Accessed 7/6/13, CB]
Venezuela is a pivotal national security interest for the United States. It is one of the largest foreign
suppliers of crude oil to the United States and is a strategic foothold that continues to pose a threat to our
interests in the region. Chavez was instrumental in bringing the threat of narcoterrorism, illicit
activities by foreign terrorist organizations and the Iranian regime, including elements of
Hezbollah, to the Western Hemisphere. Chavez’s cronies have made it abundantly clear that they
do not wish to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement officials on terrorism and countering the narcotics
trade. This was made clear once again as the new leadership in Venezuela expelled two U.S. Air Force
attaches shortly before Chavez’s death. This unwarranted, provocative action was reciprocated last
week when two Venezuelan diplomats were expelled from Washington. Still, there is more to be
done.
In a post-Chavez era, much attention is being focused on new elections and a call for democratic order.
However, elections for the sake of elections do not constitute a true democracy. Venezuela's
National Electoral Council is extremely corrupt and colludes with Chavez loyalists, who aim to
intimidate the masses in Venezuela by controlling the media and judicial system. A free, fair and
transparent election cannot be conducted if the same players continue to control the already tainted
electoral process. The authoritarian regime cannot be allowed to simply shift control from one despot to
another in an effort to maintain its iron grip over the Venezuelan people.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 107
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The United States’ role in the post-Chavez era should be to support democratic order by continuing
to promote the Venezuelan civil society and ensuring that their rights are respected. The freedomhungry people of Venezuela fear that the United States is too weak to counter interim President Nicolas
Maduro. Support for pro-democracy leaders cannot be accomplished if the Obama administration
continues to cozy up to their oppressors and refuses to draw a line in the sand for Mr. Maduro, demanding
an end to these undemocratic policies.
Last year, it was reported that the Obama administration was seeking to exchange ambassadors in
an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Department’s approach
was extremely premature, and it, unfortunately, legitimized Mr. Maduro without even questioning
whether the Venezuelan Constitution was being upheld. The Obama administration continued to send
mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a delegation to attend Chavez’s funeral
services last week, alongside enemies of the United States, such as Iranian leader Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Words matter, but actions matter more, and this decision not only sends mixed
signals to the people of Venezuela, but reiterates the failed policy of attempting to re-establish
diplomatic relations.
It is in our best interest if political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently
point to the contrary. As the leader of the Chavista movement, Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse
for the Venezuelan people and for U.S. national security interests. Mr. Maduro still controls all branches
of government, stifles free speech and was indoctrinated with socialist ideology. He has traveled to
Tehran and has strong ties with Iran, supports the Assad regime in Syria and has become a lap dog
for Cuba’s Castro brothers.
In January, the Castros orchestrated the violation of the Venezuelan Constitution when Chavez did not
take the oath of office. The U.S. State Department responded that it is up to the Venezuelan people to
decide if there was a violation, and that it would not interpret the constitution. However, those sentiments
were nowhere to be found in 2009 when the State Department led the charge against the people of
Honduras, helped expel Honduras from the Organization of American States, and did not recognize
Honduras’ constitutional authorities. Why the double standard? Democratic rights under the InterAmerican Democratic Charter cannot be selective; they must be uniform.
The United States should be telling the leaders of Venezuela that they need to respect the
constitution, abide by the Inter-American Democratic Charter and uphold democratic principles.
These democratic processes can only be enforced if the Venezuelan leadership thinks that there will
be serious repercussions if they do not take responsible actions to fulfill their obligations. This is an
opportunity for the United States and responsible nations to demonstrate a commitment to restoring true
democracy to Venezuela, and I hope the opportunity isn’t missed.
Engagement unpopular – The U.S. wants Venezuela to make the first move
De Córdoba & Muñoz, Wall Street Journal, 13
[José de Córdoba and Sara Muñoz, Staff writers covering Latin America, January 11th 2013, The Wall
Street Journal, “Venezuela, U.S. Start Talks to Mend Ties,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324581504578235911777903292.html, Accessed
7/7/13, CB]
Improving relations between the U.S. and the country with the world's biggest oil reserves could be
a long, hard slog. Mr. Chávez has led a motley crew of like-minded Latin American leaders, and has
cultivated close ties with U.S. foes like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahm adinejad.
Mr. Chávez famously called President George W. Bush a "devil" on the floor of the United Nations
before the assembled leaders in 2006. Two years later, he tossed the U.S. ambassador to Caracas,
Patrick Duddy, out of the country. The embassy has been without a top envoy since Venezuela refused
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 108
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
to accept another proposed U.S. envoy in 2010, leading the U.S. to revoke the visa of Venezuela's
ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Álvarez.
Mr. Chávez has also gone after President Barack Obama, once calling him an "ignoramus," after
Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Chávez's alleged links to Colombian guerrillas.
But both sides have cautiously reached out to each other since then. During their talk in November, Mr.
Maduro was interested in the possibility of exchanging ambassadors again, U.S. officials say. Mr. Maduro
said this month that the contacts had been made "with the authorization" of Mr. Chávez.
For its part, the U.S. prefers to move slowly. Before restoring ambassadors, it would like to see
Venezuelan instances of cooperation, U.S. officials say. They say they would like to beef up the number
of antidrug agents in the country as a first step.
"It is just going to take two to tango," Ms. Nuland said.
Other areas the U.S. would like to see progress on are counterterrorism cooperation and in resolving
commercial disputes involving U.S. companies in Venezuela, some of which have been nationalized, and
many of which sometimes have difficulty getting dollars from Venezuela's government to pay for needed
imports and repatriate profits.
Since the initial contact, Venezuelan diplomats and U.S. officials have continued the dialogue in
Washington. But the deterioration of Mr. Chávez's health had slowed progress, U.S. officials say. Few
expect Mr. Chávez to recover from his illness.
Both sides remain deeply suspicious of the other. Many Republicans in Congress are opposed to
trying to forge a new relationship with the Venezuelan government. On the Venezuelan side, Mr.
Maduro or any other potential successor to Mr. Chávez is likely to try to claim the populist's
revolutionary mantle and mimic his anti-U.S. rhetoric.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 109
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Anti-Americanism
Recognition of Venezuela is unpopular—Maduro’s anti-American rhetoric and
questioned electoral legitimacy
The Washington Times 5/6/13
(Cheryl K. Chumley, May 6, 2013, The Washington Times, “Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro: President
Obama’s ‘the grand chief of devils’,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/venezuelasnicolas-maduro-president-obamas-grand-c/, Accessed 7/4/13, JC)
Venezuela-U.S. relations took another hit over the weekend, after President Obama called
“ridiculous” the notion of an American detained in the country as a spy and government heads lashed
back, demanding the White House quit its meddling.
Venezuela is detaining Tim Tracy, 35, an American they say they’ve been tracking since 2012 and
accuse of posing as a filmmaker to plot an uprising with anti-government factions. Mr. Obama scoffed
at those claims — and Interior Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres suggested the White House butt out,
Reuters reported.
“When you want to do intelligence work in another country, all those big powers who do this type of
spying, they often use the façade of a filmmaker, documentary-maker, photographer or journalist,” he
said, Reuters reported. “Because with that façade, they can go anywhere, penetrate any place.”
Newly seated president Nicolas Maduro, meanwhile, is said to be infuriated by Mr. Obama’s comments.
In formal remarks issued over the week, Mr. Maduro — the deceased Hugo Chavez’s handpicked
socialist successor — referred to Mr. Obama as “the grand chief of devils.”
This isn’t the first time Mr. Maduro suggested the United States back off its criticisms of
Venezuela. Mr. Maduro was elected by the slimmest of margins, prompting U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry to publicly advocate a recount — and bringing down more fiery rhetoric from the
Venezuela leader.
Security concerns mean that any issues will be spun as Obama capitulating to antiAmerican interests, causing a political firestorm
LA Times, 12
[Paul West, Staff Writer, July 11th 2012, “Romney, echoing Sen. Rubio, sees Venezuelan threat to U.S.
security,” http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/11/news/la-pn-romney-echoing-rubio-sees-venezuelanthreat-to-us-security-20120711, accessed 7/4/13, CB]
Is Venezuela’s cancer-ridden strongman Hugo Chavez a serious threat to the national security of the
United States?
Mitt Romney thinks so. And the Republican presidential candidate sharply attacked President Obama
on Wednesday for appearing to think otherwise — a hard-line salvo likely to resonate loudest in the
southern part of the swing state of Florida, where conservative Cuban Americans are a potent
voting bloc.
What Obama actually stated, in a brief White House interview this week with a Spanish-language radio
and TV journalist, did not, on its face, appear all that incendiary. In fact, his remarks were in line
with the long-standing view of both his administration and the administration of Republican President
George W. Bush: that Chavez, despite his virulent anti-Americanism and dealings with unsavory regimes
around the world, hasn’t had a serious impact on the national security of the United States.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 110
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
That’s not to say that the last two U.S. administrations haven’t been aware of Chavez’s increasing
relations with state sponsors of terrorism, specifically Iran, which was the subject of a question posed
to the president on Monday by Oscar Haza of Miami’s WJAN-TV.
"We're always concerned about Iran engaging in destabilizing activity around the globe. But overall my
sense is that what Mr. Chavez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national
security impact on us," Obama said in an interview that aired Tuesday night. "We have to be vigilant.
My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their
affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don't always see."
Quick to jump on the president’s words was Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban American from south Florida
who Romney says he’s vetting as a possible vice-presidential running mate.
Rubio, in a statement early Wednesday, charged that Obama had been "living under a rock when it
comes to recognizing the national security threat posed by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.” While
crediting the Obama State Department for having expelled a Venezuelan diplomat earlier this year, after a
report that the woman had taken part in discussions about possible cyber attacks against the U.S., the
Republican senator said that Obama “continues to display an alarmingly naïve understanding of
the challenges and opportunities we face in the Western Hemisphere.”
A few hours later, Romney himself joined the criticism, deploring what he described as Obama’s
“stunning and shocking comment.”
"It is disturbing to see him downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly
wishes us ill,” said Romney. Chavez "is seeking to lead — together with the Castros — a destabilizing,
anti-democratic and anti-American 'Bolivarian Revolution’ across Latin America.”
Later, in an interview on Fox, Romney repeated the criticism. “I was stunned by his comments and
shocked by them,” Romney said.
“The idea that this nation, that this president, doesn’t pose a national security threat to this country
is simply naïve. It’s an extraordinary admission on the part of this president to be completely out of
touch with what is happening in Latin America… This is a very misguided and misdirected thought, ”
he said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 111
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Bad Relations
Anti-Americanism has made relations hostile – we can’t even exchange ambassadors
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 23, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
Developments in 2010. In February 2010, then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dennis
Blair testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the annual threat assessment
of the U.S. intelligence community. According to Blair, President “Chávez continues to impose an
authoritarian populist political model in Venezuela that undermines democratic institutions.” Blair
maintained that with regard to foreign policy, “Chávez’s regional influence may have peaked, but he is
likely to support likeminded political allies and movements in neighboring countries and seek to
undermine moderate, pro-U.S. governments.” Blair maintained that “Chávez and his allies are likely
to oppose nearly every U.S. policy initiative in the region, including the expansion of free trade,
counter drug and counterterrorism cooperation, military training, and security initiatives, and even
U.S. assistance programs.”73
In August 2010, President Chávez criticized comments by U.S. Ambassador-designate to
Venezuela Larry Palmer for his responses to questions for record for his nomination before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that touched on Cuba’s influence in the Venezuelan military
and ties between members of the Venezuelan government and the FARC.74 The Venezuelan
government maintained that it would not accept Palmer as U.S. Ambassador in Caracas, and on
December 20, 2010, officially revoked its agreement for the appointment of Palmer as
Ambassador. The State Department responded on December 27, 2010, by revoking the diplomatic
visa of Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez. The full Senate did not act on Palmer’s nomination by the end
of the 111th Congress, so the nomination was sent back to the President in December 2010.
No further action has been taken to restore ambassadors.
Nobody believes in engagement – relations have tanked in recent years
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.31, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
By September 2008, however, U.S. relations with Venezuela took a significant turn for the worse
when Venezuela expelled U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy and the U.S. responded in kind with
Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez. Also in September, U.S. officials criticized
Venezuela’s efforts against drug trafficking, and President Bush determined, for the fourth year in
a row, that Venezuela had failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international
narcotics control agreements. U.S. Treasury Department officials also froze the assets of two
high-ranking Venezuelan government officials and the former interior minister for allegedly
helping the FARC with weapons and drug trafficking.
Under the Obama Administration, Venezuela and the United States announced an agreement on
June 25, 2009, for the return of respective ambassadors. While some observers are hopeful that
the return of ambassadors will mark an improvement in relations, others emphasize continued
U.S. concerns about the Venezuelan government’s treatment of the news media and political
opposition and about interference in the affairs of other countries in the region. (See “Obama
Administration Policy” below.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 112
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 113
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Too Soft
Legislators want a hard line stance against Venezuela—arms embargo proves
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.49, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
U.S. officials have expressed concerns over the past several years about Venezuela’s lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, its relations with Cuba and Iran, and President Chávez’s
sympathetic statements for Colombian terrorist groups. Since May 2006, the Secretary of State
has made an annual determination that Venezuela has not been “cooperating fully with United
States antiterrorism efforts” pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90629). As a result, the United States has imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela since 2006,
which ended all U.S. commercial arms sales and re-transfers to Venezuela. When the State
Department issued its first determination in 2006, it was based on Venezuela’s near lack of
antiterrorism cooperation over the previous year, citing its support for Iraqi insurgents and Iran’s
development of nuclear capabilities, the country’s status as a safe haven for Colombian and Basque
terrorist groups, and its effort to derail hemispheric efforts to advance counter-terrorism policies in
the OAS.
The U.S. is transitioning to a more hardline policy to respond to violations in
democracy and drug trafficking
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 23-24, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
Developments in 2011. In February 2011, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper
testified about President Chávez’s waning influence in Latin America. According to Clapper,
“deteriorating economic conditions in Venezuela and Chávez’s declining popularity at home and
abroad have limited his ability to exert influence beyond his core group of allies.”75
Also in February 2011 congressional testimony, then Assistant Secretary of State Arturo
Valenzuela criticized the December 2010 action of Venezuela’s outgoing National Assembly for
its approval of a law that delegated legislative authority to the executive for 18 months.
Valenzuela maintained that the action undermined the authority of the incoming National
Assembly and circumscribed its popular will. He maintained that the action “violates the doctrine
of the separation of powers and therefore contravenes the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”76
On May 11, 2011, the Department of State determined for the sixth consecutive year that
Venezuela was not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. This determination was made
pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629) and allowed for the
continuation of the U.S. arms embargo on Venezuela since 2006.
On May 24, 2011, the State Department also sanctioned the Venezuelan oil company, Petróleos
de Venezuela (PdVSA), pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Disinvestment Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-195) for providing two shipments of reformate, an additive
used in gasoline, to Iran, between December 2010 and March 2011. The shipments were valued at
around $50 million. Under the sanctions, PdVSA is prohibited from competing for U.S.
government procurement contracts, securing financing from the Export-Import Bank, and
obtaining U.S. export licenses. The sanctions specifically exclude PdVSA subsidiaries (Citgo)
and do not prohibit the export of oil to the United States.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 114
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
In September 2011, as part of the annual narcotics certification process, President Obama again
determined that Venezuela had “failed demonstrably” to meet its obligations under international
counternarcotics measures. This marked the seventh consecutive annual designation of Venezuela in
this category. The justification accompanying the determination maintained that “individual
“members of the government and security forces security forces were credibly reported to have
engaged in or facilitated drug trafficking activities.”77 The justification noted some positive steps
taken by the Venezuelan government in the past year, including the transfer of several major drug
traffickers to the United States and other drug traffickers to third countries and a bilateral counternarcotics
agreement with Colombia.
Engagement is unpopular – instead, sanctions are being used to contain concerning
policies
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 43, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
U.S. officials have expressed concerns over the past several years about Venezuela’s lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, President Chávez’s sympathetic statements for Colombian
terrorist groups (the FARC and ELN), and Venezuela’s relations with Cuba and Iran. Since May
2006, the Secretary of State has made an annual determination that Venezuela has not been
“cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts” pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms
Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629).143 As a result, the United States has imposed an arms embargo on
Venezuela since 2006, which prohibits all U.S. commercial arms sales and retransfers to Venezuela. For
several years, U.S. officials also expressed concern that Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel
documents were easy to obtain, making the country a potentially attractive way-station for
terrorists. In June 2011 congressional testimony, State Department officials again expressed concern
about “Venezuela’s relations with Iran, its support for the FARC, [and] its lackluster cooperation on
counterterrorism.”144
Colombian Terrorist Groups145
To date, the United States has imposed financial sanctions against seven current or former
Venezuelan government and military officials for providing support to the FARC. As noted above,
in September 2008, the Treasury Department froze the assets of two senior intelligence
officials—General Hugo Carvajal and General Henry Rangel—and the former interior minister,
Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, for allegedly helping the FARC with weapons and drug trafficking.146
General Rangel was appointed by President Chávez as defense minister in January 2012, an
action that raised concern among U.S. policymakers. As noted above, Rangel stepped down in
October 2012, and went on to win the governorship of the Venezuelan state of Trujillo in
December 2012 elections while Rodríguez Chacín also was elected as governor of the state of
Guárico in December. In September 2011, the Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions
on four more Venezuelan officials for acting for or on behalf of the FARC, often in direct support
of its narcotics and arms trafficking activities. (Also see “Counternarcotics Issues” above.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 115
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Terrorism
Plan unpopular – Terrorism is seen as a bigger priority toward Venezuela
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.49-50, Accessed 7/5/13, CB]
U.S. officials have expressed concerns over the past several years about Venezuela’s lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, its relations with Cuba and Iran, and President Chávez’s
sympathetic statements for Colombian terrorist groups. Since May 2006, the Secretary of State
has made an annual determination that Venezuela has not been “cooperating fully with United
States antiterrorism efforts” pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90629). As a result, the United States has imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela since 2006,
which ended all U.S. commercial arms sales and re-transfers to Venezuela. When the State
Department issued its first determination in 2006, it was based on Venezuela’s near lack of
antiterrorism cooperation over the previous year, citing its support for Iraqi insurgents and Iran’s
development of nuclear capabilities, the country’s status as a safe haven for Colombian and
Basque terrorist groups, and its effort to derail hemispheric efforts to advance counter-terrorism
policies in the OAS.
The State Department’s April 2009 Country Reports on Terrorism maintained that while
Venezuela President Hugo Chávez’s ideological sympathy for the FARC and the ELN had limited
Venezuelan cooperation with Colombia in combating terrorism, President Chávez publicly
changed course in June 2008 and called on the FARC to unconditionally release all hostages,
declaring that armed struggle is “out of place” in modern Latin America. In July 2008, the
Venezuelan military detained a senior FARC official and handed him over to Colombian
authorities. Nevertheless, in September 2008, the Treasury Department froze the assets of two
senior Venezuelan intelligence officials—General Hugo Carvajal and General Henry Rangel—
and the former interior minister, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, for allegedly helping the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with weapons and drug trafficking.173
Information on captured computer files from Colombia’s March 2008 raid of a FARC camp in
Ecuador had raised questions about potential support of the FARC by the Chávez government.
Venezuelan officials have dismissed the data as having been fabricated even though Interpol
verified in May 2008 that the files had not been tampered with since they were seized. On June 6,
2008, two Venezuelan nationals (one a national guard sergeant) and two Colombians were
arrested in eastern Colombia for gun-running. The four were captured with some 40,000 rounds
of ammunition allegedly destined for the FARC.
In the April 2009 terrorism report, the State Department stated that the FARC, ELN, and remnants
of the AUC often crossed into Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup as well as to extort
protection money and kidnap Venezuelans in order to finance their operations. According to the
report, the Venezuelan government also did not systematically police its country’s border with
Colombia to prevent the movement of armed groups or to interdict the flow of narcotics. Some
limited amounts of weapons and ammunition from official Venezuelan stocks and facilities were
reported to have ended up in the hands of Colombian terrorist groups. As noted above, the
Swedish government questioned Venezuela in late July on how FARC had obtained Swedish made antitank rocket launchers that had been sold to Venezuela in the 1980s.
The State Department terrorism report also cited two other concerns about Venezuela. First, as
noted in the past, Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel documents remained easy to obtain,
making the country a potentially attractive way-station for terrorists. Second, the report noted that
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 116
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
passengers on weekly flights connecting Tehran and Damascus with Caracas were subject only to
cursory immigration and customs controls in Caracas.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 117
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Snowden
Engagement with Venezuela will be massively unpopular—Democrats and
Republicans both backlash because of Snowden
The Huffington Post 6/24/13
(Eric Yaverbaum, CEO Ericho Communications¶ “All Republicans and Democrats Agree That Snowden
Is a Traitorous Villain, Except All the Ones That Don't... Right or Left Finally Not Relevant!,” Lexis,
Accessed 7/7/13, JC)
Few figures in living memory have been as acutely polarizing as Eric Snowden. For many across the
country, the issue is assuredly black and white. The former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor who leaked
top-secret information about the NSA's data gathering capabilities with programs code-named PRISM
and Boundless Informant [1]has been both damned a traitor and heralded a messiah. To his detractors,
Snowden is an American Judas: he swore allegiance to his country and was given the responsibility to
safeguard its secrets. Nevertheless, he fled the country as a turncoat carrying top-secret files on a flash
drive. Claiming it was for his own safety, Snowden decided to spill the beans in Hong Kong, an
"autonomous" region of the Communist "People's Republic" of China, where he provided extensive
interviews to Chinese newspapers [2]and leaked confidential documents. Through social media,[3] he
broadcast incriminatory messages about the Land of the Free to every corner of the globe. As of this
writing, Snowden is living as a jet set celebrity while a fugitive from the American government.
According to the news[4], he plans on making a pit stop in Moscow, the seat of a modern-day dictator, on
his way towards an unknown destination. Rumor has it that Snowden is seeking political asylum in a
"free" country like Venezuela to protect him from extradition or rendition to the Home of the Brave.
By law, the National Security Agency is charged with the collection and analysis of foreign
communication and signals intelligence. In the age of Big Data and exponentially growing Internet, theirs
is an extraordinary responsibility. All three branches of the American government, including officials
from every party, have authorized programs designed to prevent disaster from occurring. For the purposes
of safeguarding national security and American interests, the NSA and its elected oversight committees
have, for decades, carefully shrouded the spy agency's futuristic capabilities with near-complete secrecy.
Eric Snowden unilaterally decided to divulge these top-secret operational details to the world. In one fell
swoop, the mystery that once protected and promulgated NSA operations has vanished. Snowden's data
leaks and subsequent interviews with the media and, in all likelihood, with inquiring foreign intelligence
agencies has already resulted in devastating consequences for American relations abroad. The stature and
influence of our diplomatic corps at the State Department[5] and the reputation of our clandestine services
have been traumatically damaged[6]. To the Anti-Snowden camp, in an age of both nationless
terrorism and an uneasy détente with rogue states, Eric Snowden committed sins unforgivable: he
aided the enemy, furnishing every radical organization in the world with blueprints to the most
valuable components of the American defense infrastructure. Perhaps worse, he gifted untold measures
of political capital to our enemies and provided ready-made propaganda that is sure to foment antiAmerican attitudes and destructive behavior.
As a result, it should come as no surprise that elected officials across the board condemn Snowden. In
fact, the Anti-Snowden crowd is perhaps the most diverse collective in American politics: it is made up
of people from every wing of every party. Liberal lions and ultra-conservatives are, for the first time
since 9/11, standing together to angrily shake their fists and mutter promises of a righteous, vengeful
justice. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has declared Snowden a traitor and recently declared "I
hope we'll chase him to the ends of the Earth.[7]" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was booed
after describing Snowden as a criminal at a liberal conference in San Jose, California, near her home
district. Her response was to lecture the crowd, "...you don't have the responsibility for the security of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 118
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
United States. Those of us who do have to strike a difference balance.[8]" Both
Republican Congressman Peter King and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein have accused
Snowden of treason[9], yet they are diametrically opposed on so many other topics[10].
Given this perspective, it's astonishing that millions of American citizens are celebrating this "self-evident
treason." Huge masses of Democrats and Republicans alike are united in support of what some
consider to be virulently anti-American activity.
Snowden makes US-Venezuelan economic relations politically unpopular
Negroponte, Latin America Initiative Brookings senior fellow, 7/2/13
(Diana Villiers Negroponte, July 2, 2013, Brookings, “Consequences for Venezuela if Maduro Offers
Asylum to Edward Snowden,” Accessed 7/4/13, JC)
Within these relations, Secretary of State Kerry met with Foreign Minister Elías Jaua on the margins of
the recent OAS meeting in Guatemala. The report of the meeting indicated that Kerry was firm and
insisted that improvements had to be made in specific areas before diplomatic relations at the
Ambassadorial level could resume. Among those areas of collaboration was Venezuelan permission for
Drug Enforcement Agents to carry out counter-narcotics investigations and improvement of airport
security. Without serious progress in these areas, relations with Washington would not improve. More
recently, the State Department has sent the message to Jaua through his Charge d’Affaire in
Washington, Calixto Ortega, that the grant of asylum to Snowden would jeopardize all bilateral
projects.
In appointing Ortega to Washington, bilateral relations had begun to improve. “Ortega has a lot of
knowledge of U.S. society, and we know that he will contribute a lot towards increasing dialogue…We
want to have the best ties with all the world’s governments, and the U.S. government, but on the basis of
respect. There can be no threats,” said Maduro in his April 24th statement reported
by www.venezuelanalysis.com. “I have decided to name Calixto Ortega so that dialogue with U.S. society
can increase, with the universities, the academic world, the social and union world, the Afro-American
community, the Latino community, Congress, senators, representatives, the economic, trade and energy
sectors.” Ortega, the former Venezuelan minister to the Latin American parliament was well received at
the State Department and hope exists in Washington that bilateral relations can improve on a steady and
pragmatic basis.
However, flying Snowden to Venezuela and granting him asylum will blow apart the prospects for
improved relations. The recently formed Continental Coalition of Social Movements in support of
the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) may rejoice that Snowden can operate and speak freely in
Venezuela, but the prospects of dialogue with U.S. economic, trade and energy sectors will fizzle
out. Without U.S. support, few nations will step in to help meet Venezuela’s rising debt repayments and
falling foreign reserves. In deciding whether to give Snowden a way out of Moscow, Maduro must
balance the economic wellbeing of Venezuela against the short term notoriety of saving Snowden.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 119
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Snowden – Going to Venezuela
Snowden will accept asylum in Venezuela
Washington Times 7/2/13
(Valerie Richardson, July 2nd 2013, Washington Times,
“Venezuela’s President Maduro defends Edward Snowden: ‘He did not kill anyone’,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/venezuelas-president-maduro-defends-edwardsnowden/?page=all, Accessed 7/4/13, JC)
Meanwhile, Mr. Snowden’s increasingly desperate bids for asylum to escape prosecution on espionage
charges could lead him back to America — specifically, South America.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro defended the accused leaker to Russian reporters Tuesday
during a visit to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“He did not kill anyone and did not plant a bomb,” said Mr. Maduro, according to the Interfax news
agency. “What he did was tell a great truth in an effort to prevent wars. He deserves protection under
international and humanitarian law.”
Venezuela defied US on Snowden
Global Post 7/5/13
(July 5, 2013, Global Post, “Venezuela offers asylum to U.S. fugitive Snowden,”
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130705/venezuelas-maduro-offers-asylumsnowden, Accessed 7/6/13, JC)
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro offered asylum to former U.S.
intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in defiance of Washington, which is demanding his arrest
for divulging details of secret U.S. spy programs.
Snowden, 30, is believed to be holed up in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo international
airport and has been trying to find a country that would take him since he landed from Hong Kong on
June 23.
"In the name of America's dignity ... I have decided to offer humanitarian asylum to Edward
Snowden," Maduro told a military parade marking Venezuela's independence day.
"He is a young man who has told the truth, in the spirit of rebellion, about the United States spying
on the whole world."
Snowden’s asylum makes Venezuela a hot-button issue
Bloomberg 7/6/13
[Anatoly Kurmanaev and Nathan Crooks, July 6th 2013, “Venezuela Leads Latin American Shelter
Offers to Snowden,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-06/venezuela-offers-asylum-to-u-sfugitive-edward-snowden.html, Accessed 7/6/13, CB]
Venezuela’s offer was matched by Bolivia and Nicaragua, which opened their doors to the 30-year-old
behind leaks on top-secret U.S. National Security Agency programs that collect telephone and Internet
data. The U.S. pursuit of Snowden has roiled international relations.
“We will give asylum to this North American, who is persecuted by his compatriots, if he asks us. We are
not afraid,” Bolivian President Evo Morales was quoted as saying by the Bolivian state news agency in
Chipaya, Oruro today.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 120
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Morales said the offer is “justified protest” against four European countries that denied him
flyover permission on U.S-fed suspicion that his plane carried Snowden from Moscow on July 2.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said yesterday he would receive Snowden “circumstances
permitting,” in comments broadcast on Venezuelan state television. Maduro, Ortega and Morales didn’t
say if they would issue travel documents to him.
‘Consequences’
“These leaders have made their point. They are clearly taking the plane incident seriously,” Diego
Moya-Ocampos, a Latin America analyst at consulting firm IHS Global Insight, said by phone from
London today. “There are going to be consequences, but they are willing to take that risk.”
Snowden remains in limbo at an airport in Moscow after withdrawing his request for asylum in Russia.
He has instead sought refuge in 26 other countries, including Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua,
according to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.
Snowden, whose U.S. passport was revoked, can’t leave the Moscow airport transit zone without a new
travel document. He dropped his request for asylum in Russia after President Vladimir Putin said July 1
that the American must stop hurting U.S. interests if he wants to remain there.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 121
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Iran
Democrats and Republicans hate engagement with Venezuela—viewed as
concession to Iranian ally
Bowman, VOA News, 12
(Michael Bowman, February 16th 2012, “U.S. Congress Warns Venezuela over Ties with Iran,”
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=72042&pageid=17&pagename=News, Accessed
7/7/13, JC)
U.S. senators are warning Latin American nations against deepening financial and military ties
with Iran, pledging heightened U.S. vigilance of Iranian activities in the Western Hemisphere. The
Senate's Foreign Relations Subcommittee took a close look on February 16 at Tehran’s dealings with
Latin America. Iran’s increasingly isolated regime retains friends in Latin America, most notably
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
U.S. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez had a stern message for the region. “Unfortunately, there
are some countries in this hemisphere that, for political or financial gain, have courted Iranian
overtures. They proceed at their own risk: the risk of sanctions from the United States, and the risk of
abetting a terrorist state,” he said.
Republican Senator Marco Rubio echoed that message. “The leaders of these [Latin American]
countries are playing with fire,” Rubio said.
Researcher Douglas Farah said Iran's intentions in Latin America are twofold. “To develop the capacity
and capability to wreak havoc in Latin America and possibly the U.S. homeland, if the Iranian leadership
views this as necessary to the survival of its nuclear program, and to develop and expand the ability to
blunt international sanctions that are crippling the regime’s economic life,” Farah said.
Of particular concern: Iran’s quest for raw nuclear materials and what U.S. National Intelligence
Director James Clapper recently described as Iran’s increasing willingness to mount attacks on U.S.
soil.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 122
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Oil
Venezuelan oil interests are unpopular in Congress – oil diplomacy is used to
undermine the U.S. in the region
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S. Policy,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.47-48, Accessed 7/5/13, CB]
Since 2005, President Chávez has used so-called “oil diplomacy” to provide oil to Caribbean
Basin nations on preferential terms in a program known as PetroCaribe, prompting U.S. concern
that Venezuela is using these programs to increase its influence in the region. Under the program,
Venezuela initially offered to supply 190,000 barrels per day of oil to the region on preferential
terms with 50% of the oil financed over 25 years at an annual interest rate of 1%. At a July 2008
PetroCaribe summit, President Chávez announced that up to 60% of the oil could be financed
while oil prices remained over $100 a barrel, and this would rise to 70% financed if oil prices rise
to over $150 a barrel. Most Caribbean nations are members, with the exception of Barbados and
Trinidad and Tobago. Cuba, a major beneficiary, receives over 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil
under the program. In Central America, Nicaragua and Honduras joined PetroCaribe in 2007 and
Guatemala joined in July 2008. PetroCaribe also has the goal of putting in place a regional
supply, refining, and transportation and storage network, and establishing a development fund for
those countries participating in the program.
In addition to these preferential oil arrangements, Venezuela is investing in energy sectors in
several Latin American countries. Chávez has pledged to invest $1.5 billion in Bolivia’s gas
industry. Ecuador and Venezuela have signed agreements for joint development in oil, gas,
refining, and petrochemical sectors. In 2005, PdVSA signed an agreement to build an oil refinery
in northeastern Brazil. Construction on the 200,000 bpd refinery began in September 2007, and is
to be supplied with oil from both Brazil and Venezuela when it begins operations in 2010.
Colombia and Venezuela signed an agreement in July 2006 initiating a gas pipeline project that
would initially supply gas to Venezuela from northern Colombia, and then reverse the flow once
Venezuela develops its own natural gas reserves. Argentina and Venezuela also announced an
alliance in July 2006 involving cooperation on hydrocarbon exploration and development in both
countries. In Cuba, PdVSA helped refurbish an oil refinery in Cienfuegos, and has signed an
exploration and production agreement with Cupet, Cuba’s state-oil company.166
The potential use of Venezuela’s windfall oil profits abroad to influence activities in other Latin
American countries was highlighted in December 2007 when three Venezuelans—Franklin
Duran, Moises Maionica, and Carlos Kauffmann—and one Uruguayan national were arrested and
charged in U.S. federal court in Miami with acting and conspiring to act as agents of the
Venezuelan government without prior notification to the U.S. Attorney General. (A fifth foreign
national wanted in the case, Antonio José Canchica Gomez, reportedly a Venezuelan intelligence
official, remains at large.) All four defendants were alleged to have conspired in a scheme to
conceal the source and destination and the role of the Venezuelan government in the attempted
delivery of $800,000 to Argentina by a U.S. businessman, Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson. The
funds were alleged to be destined for the presidential campaign of Argentine President Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner. High-level Venezuelan officials also were alleged to be involved in the
matter, including from the Office of the Vice President and the Intelligence and Preventative
Services Directorate (DISIP).167 Ultimately three of the four defendants facing trial—Maionica,
Kauffmann, and Wanseele—pled guilty, while Duran was tried and convicted in early November
2008 and later sentenced to four years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 123
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The oil sector hates Venezuelan management of hydrocarbons
Mufson, Washington Post 13
[Steven Mufson, Staff Writer, March 7th 2013, “The politics of oil, post-'Chavismo',” lexis, Accessed
7/6/13, CB]
Five years ago, a full-page ad blasting Exxon Mobil appeared in the Venezuelan newspaper Ultimas
Noticias. Drawings of drops of oil went from black at the top of the page to red at the bottom.
"Exxon turns oil into blood," the bold-face text declared. Addressing "Exxtranjero" - the Spanish
word for foreigner, with an extra "x" - it used a slogan from the Spanish Civil War that roughly
translates as "you will not pass."
The ad summed up the combative relationship the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez had with
some international oil companies and how he used his country's vast oil riches as a political tool and
weapon. Abroad, he pushed for crude prices of $100 a barrel. At home, subsidies have kept fuel prices
down around 8 cents a gallon.
"He's a charmer. He's a liar," said one oil industry executive who knew Chavez, speaking on
condition of anonymity to protect business relationships. "He's done a lot to improve the lot of his people.
He ruined the oil industry."
Few analysts expect much change from his vice president and potential successor, Nicolas Maduro,
who would need to bolster his domestic base.
The state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), once regarded as one of the world's
best, has become the government's social-spending arm while investment in oil fields has lagged.
The year before Chavez became president, Venezuela's oil production reached 3.5 million barrels a day.
Then it slumped so badly that even after a modest recovery, it averaged only 2.5 million barrels a day last
year.
Meanwhile PDVSA, even after purging thousands of experienced engineers and managers during a labor
dispute, has grown to about 99,000 employees, according to a report from the Eurasia Group consulting
firm. And half of its staggering $36 billion in debt is held by China.
"PDVSA is a shadow of its former self," said David Goldwyn, a consultant and formerly the State
Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs under Hillary Rodham
Clinton. "The refineries are [in] shambles. Fields are in decline. New investment is stagnant."
Chavez also raised the state oil company's share in production projects to 60 percent, and while
most companies cut new deals, a couple, including Exxon Mobil, went to court.
Only historically high crude oil prices of about $100 a barrel have saved the country's economy from ruin.
Revenue stayed high even though the heavily subsidized domestic consumption has jumped 39 percent
since 2001 and exports dropped by nearly half to 1.7 million barrels a day.
While condemning the United States and wooing countries such as Russia and Iran, Chavez still relied
heavily on U.S. Gulf Coast refineries that were among the few capable of handling Venezuela's thick,
low-quality crude oil. About half of Venezuela's crude ends up in the United States. But if the Keystone
XL pipeline is built, similar-quality crude from Canada's oil sands could push out Venezuelan petroleum.
"I think Chavez will be remembered for politicizing a once professional national oil company and
managing to increase control but decrease production, miss the [liquefied natural gas] boom, and
open the U.S. refining sector for Canadian oil," Goldwyn said. Referring to Canada's rival oil industry
center, Goldwyn said, "He should be a hero in Calgary."
Venezuela was a founding member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and
Chavez pushed for lower production and higher prices. But he wielded little power in the cartel, which is
dominated by the Persian Gulf producers.
Chavez still used oil as a tool of his foreign policy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 124
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
"Venezuela is currently giving away around one third of its oil production at below-market prices, which
together account for an estimated $20 billion in lost revenue per year," said a report by the Eurasia Group,
equal to 6.5 percent of gross domestic product.
The firm estimated that Venezuela shipped around 200,000 barrels a day to Caribbean and Central
American countries in 2012 and 115,000 barrels a day to Cuba. In addition, Venezuela is sending more oil
to China - about half a million barrels a day, according to the Eurasia Group - in part to meet its heavy
interest payments on debt held by China.
Few analysts expect change in the Chavez oil policies soon.
"I doubt that the opening of the petroleum sector is in the cards, especially in the short term," said
Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue. "Maduro will have to tread carefully,
and reforming PDVSA could risk support within Chavismo [the name given to Chavez's political
movement]. On the other hand, if the economic situation becomes completely untenable and Maduro
eventually faces the choice of a greater opening or losing political control, he might opt for the former,
however reluctantly."
A report by Daniel Kerner, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, said, "Under a successor government,
PDVSA would likely remain a key source of financing for the government's social programs, infringing
on its investment capacity."
"A Maduro administration is unlikely to significantly alter any of these programs," Kerner added.
"In fact, in a context where the president would likely have lower political capital than Chavez and
would likely face significant economic challenges, he would be even more reliant on maintaining
such programs for his own political capital."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 125
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Freedom of the Press
Action toward Venezuela unpopular – freedom of the press violations
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.11-12, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
The OAS Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression expressed concern in late
December 2006 about Venezuela’s decision and its effect on freedom of expression. OAS
Secretary General José Miguel Insulza issued a statement on January 5, 2007, expressing concern
that Venezuela’s decision not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) gave the
appearance of censorship. He expressed hope that the action would be reversed by the Venezuelan
government.25 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed concern about freedom of
expression in Venezuela and called on the Venezuelan government to protect
pluralism in the media.26
Numerous human rights also organizations denounced Venezuela’s decision not to renew RCTV’s
license as a violation of freedom of speech. These included the Inter-American Press Association,
Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Instituto Prensa y Sociedad,
and Human Rights Watch, which maintained that the government’s decision was politically motivated
and was a serious setback for freedom of expression.27
Thousands of protestors marched in Caracas at events in April and May 2007 denouncing the
government decision, but the government followed through with its decision and RCTV ceased
its public broadcasting on May 27. The closure of RCTV prompted protests, primarily by students
who oppose the government’s action as a violation of freedom of their civil rights. The strength
and endurance of the student-led protests appear to have taken the government by surprise. Polls
reportedly show that more than 70% of Venezuelans disagree with President Chávez’s decision to
close RCTV.28 Nevertheless, the government has threatened legal action against another private
television station, Globovisión, accusing it of inciting assassination attempts against President
Chávez. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro has asserted that the United States is
behind plans to destabilize Venezuela.
Several countries, including the United States, spoke out against Venezuela’s action. The U.S.
Senate approved S.Res. 211 (Lugar) on May 24, 2007 by unanimous consent expressing profound
concerns regarding freedom of expression in Venezuela and the government’s decision not to renew
the license of RCTV. In the aftermath of RCTV’s closure, the State Department issued a statement
calling on Venezuela to reverse its policies that limit freedom of expression.29 The European Parliament
adopted a resolution on May 24, 2007, expressing concern about Venezuela’s action, and calling for the
government to ensure equal treatment under the law for all media. On May 31, 2007, the Brazilian Senate
issued a strong statement calling for President
Chávez to review his decision. The Chilean Senate also supported a resolution against the closure
of RCTV. At the OAS General Assembly meeting held in Panama June 3-5, 2007, several nations,
such as Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Peru, in addition to the United States, spoke
out for freedom of the press. Ultimately, however, the OAS did not approve a resolution
specifically criticizing Venezuela for its actions, but adopted a resolution reaffirming the right to
freedom of expression and calling upon member states to respect and ensure respect for this
right.30
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 126
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Human Rights
Engagement is unpopular – Venezuela routinely disobeys human rights requests
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.25-26, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
In March 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a statement
expressing concern about the human rights situation in Venezuela and appealing to the
government to allow an IACHR representative to visit the country. The Commission stated that in
the last years it “has observed a gradual deterioration of the constitutional order that has
compromised the full enjoyment of human rights” and expressed concern about freedom of
expression in the country.68 In its 2007 annual report, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights highlights the difficulties that human rights defenders face in Venezuela, including attacks
and threats on their life, and other obstacles such as public discrediting by state officials.69
Some observers are concerned that Chávez is using his political strength to push toward
authoritarian rule. Human Rights Watch maintains that the Chávez government dealt a severe
blow to judicial independence by packing the Supreme Court with his supporters under a new law
that expanded the court from 20 to 32 justices. Since 2004, according to Human Rights Watch,
the packed Court has fired hundreds of provisional judges and granted to permanent judgeships to
about 1,000 others.70 The Chávez government enacted a broadcast media law in December 2004
that could allow the government to restrict news coverage that is critical of the government, while
in March 2005 it amended Venezuela’s criminal code to broaden laws that punish “disrespect for
government authorities.” The IACHR and human rights groups such as the Committee to Protect
Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and the Inter-American Press Association maintain that
these measures have restricted freedom of expression, with newspapers and broadcasters
practicing self-censorship. (Also see “RCTV Closure and Public Reaction” above.)
In September 2008, Human Rights Watch issued an extensive report examining setbacks in
human rights protections and practices under the Chávez government. The report states that under
President Chávez, the Venezuelan government has: tolerated, encouraged, and engaged in
wideranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics; undermined freedom of
expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media content and control; sought to
remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of
association; and undermined its own ability to address the country’s long-standing human rights
problems through its adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations.
The report makes recommendations for the Venezuelan government to take actions in each of these areas
in order to promote a more inclusive democracy.71
In an immediate response to the release of the Human Rights Watch report, the Venezuelan
government expelled two staff members of the human rights organization visiting the country on
September 18, 2008, an action that was condemned by numerous human rights groups throughout Latin
America.72 On September 26, 2008, 41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to
President Chávez expressing their outrage over the expulsion of the Human Rights Watch staff,
and urging the President to embrace the recommendations of the report and strengthen the
promotion of human rights, democratic institutions, and political pluralism in the country.
In late November 2008, the Washington-based Due Process of Law Foundation issued a report
criticizing the imprisonment of eight police officials accused of murder in April 2002 during a
massive opposition demonstration that led to the temporary ouster of President Chávez. The
report alleged violation of the police officials’ due process and raised concerns about the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 127
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
independence of the judges in the case.7
Venezuela causes fights in Congress because of their terrible human rights track
record
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 28, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
An extensive Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela issued in July 2012 maintains that the
human rights situation in the country has become even more precarious in recent years.88 It noted
that the pro-Chávez majority in the National Assembly approved legislation in 2010 expanding the
government’s powers to limit free speech and punish its critics. It asserts that the Supreme Court
“has explicitly rejected the principle that the judiciary should serve as a check on presidential
power, while joining with the president in dismissing the authority of the InterAmerican system of human
rights.” For almost a decade, President Chávez has not allowed the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights to visit the country, while in July 2012 he
announced that Venezuela would withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights. The report contends that “the accumulation of power in the executive, the removal
of institutional safeguards, and the erosion of human rights guarantees have given the Chávez
government free reign to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticize the president
or thwart his political agenda.”
The State Department’s 2011 human rights report (issued in May 2012) maintains that the
“principal human rights abuses reported during the year included government actions to impede
freedom of expression and criminalize dissent.”89 According to the State Department, the
Venezuelan government harassed and intimidated privately owned television stations, other media
outlets, and journalists. The government was reported to have thwarted judicial independence,
and to have used the judiciary to intimidate and selectively prosecute political, union, business,
and civil society leaders critical of the government. The State Department report also cites other
human rights problems such as unlawful killings; torture and degrading treatment; prison violence
and harsh prison conditions; inadequate juvenile detention centers; arbitrary arrests and
detentions; police corruption and impunity; interference with property rights; and threats against
domestic nongovernmental organizations. The significant problem of prison violence was
highlighted once again on August 19, 2012, when a clash between gangs at a prison in Miranda
state reportedly resulted in at least 25 deaths.
Venezuela unpopular—Human Rights Violations and Drug Trafficking
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.1-2, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
On October 3, 2008, Venezuelan military intelligence officials detained retired General Raúl
Baduel, and prohibited him from leaving the country on charges of corruption during his tenure as
defense minister. A former Chávez supporter, Baduel has become a staunch critic of the President.
Chávez opponents maintain that the action against Baduel was intended to intimidate the
opposition before the state and municipal elections scheduled for November 23.
On September 26, 2008, 41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to President
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 128
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Chávez expressing their outrage over the expulsion of two Human Rights Watch staff, and urging
the President to embrace the recommendations of the report and strengthen the promotion of
human rights, democratic institutions, and political pluralism in the country.
On September 18, 2008, Human Rights Watch issued an extensive report examining setbacks in
human rights protections and practices under the Chávez government. Late in the evening, the
Venezuelan government expelled two Human Rights Watch employees visiting the country, an
action that was condemned by numerous human rights groups throughout Latin America. The full
report, “A Decade Under Chávez, Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing
Human Rights in Venezuela, ” is available at http://hrw.org/reports/2008/venezuela0908/.
On September 16, 2008, for the fourth year in a row, President Bush determined that Venezuela
had failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international narcotics control
agreements, but waived sanctions to allow the continuation of U.S. foreign assistance to support
civil society programs and community development programs.
On September 12, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the assets of two senior Venezuelan
intelligence officials and the former interior minister for allegedly helping the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with weapons and drug trafficking. The State Department also
declared Venezuela’s U.S. Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez persona non grata.
On September 11, 2008, President Chávez announced that he was expelling the U.S. Ambassador
to Venezuela, Patrick Duddy, and alleged that the Venezuelan government had foiled a U.S.backed conspiracy to assassinate him. Chávez also announced that he was recalling the
Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 129
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Chavez’s Death
Plan popular—US officials see Maduro’s leadership as an opportunity to improve
relations
LA Times 3/6/13
(Paul Richter and Chris Kraul, March 6, 2013, Los Angeles Times, “U.S.-Venezuela ties may warm postChavez,” http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/06/world/la-fg-us-venezuela-20130306, Accessed 7/5/13,
JC)
Though Chavez's immediate successors probably won't jettison his socialist domestic policy, those in
position to take over don't appear to have the same hunger for regional leadership or the skill to take
on such a role, say current and former U.S. officials and other analysts. That could make the
relationship with Washington less rancorous, if not exactly warm.
"Chavez had a map in his mind of how he wanted to pursue his revolutionary project around the world,"
said Stephen Johnson, a top Pentagon policymaker on Latin America during the George W. Bush
administration. "It's hard to imagine that his successor is going to have the same determination or selfconfidence in those areas."
On Tuesday, the first indication of the future was not particularly comforting. Nicolas Maduro, Chavez's
vice president and designated heir, announced on national TV that American military attache David
Delmonaco must leave the country within 24 hours for "proposing destabilizing plans" to members of
Venezuela's armed forces. Maduro also implied that the U.S. was at fault for Chavez's illness and said he
would set up a scientific commission to investigate. Later, a U.S. Air Force assistant attache was also
expelled.
But over time, analysts say, Maduro's track record has not reflected the same fiery nature as that of
Chavez.
Though Maduro, as foreign minister, worked to separate Venezuela further from the United States,
building stronger ties with Cuba, Russia and China, he doesn't have Chavez's forceful personality,
analysts say.
He echoes Chavez's hard-line views about U.S. influence worldwide as well as other key points of
Venezuela's foreign policy, but U.S. officials see him as a deal maker rather than an antagonist, and
some have even praised his affability. Apparently with Chavez's blessing, Maduro recently showed
signs of wanting to explore what might be gained by better relations with the United States: In
November, he began talks with Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of State for Latin America.
Plan has bipartisan support—Congress seeks to use Chavez’s death to recast USVenezuela relations
Fox News 3/16/13
(March 6, 2013, Fox News, “Obama, US lawmakers see 'new chapter' in Venezuela after Chavez's death,”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/obama-us-supports-venezuelan-people-as-begin-newchapter-after-chavez/#ixzz2YDbABErH, Accessed 7/5/13, JC)
U.S. officials quickly cast Hugo Chavez's death as an opportunity for America to rebuild a
relationship with Venezuela and for the country itself to pursue “meaningful democratic reforms," with
President Obama heralding a "new chapter" in the Latin American country's history.
Chavez, who had been battling cancer since 2011, died Tuesday after 14 years in power. An election is
expected to be held in 30 days – the transition marks one of the first major challenges for newly appointed
Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama kept a measured tone in a statement released Tuesday evening.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 130
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
"At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its support for
the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan
government," Obama said. "As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains
committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human
rights.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were less reserved.
“Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear,” Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif.,
chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a written statement. “His death dents the
alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.”
He said that, while not guaranteed, “closer U.S. relations with this key country in our Hemisphere are
now possible.”
Royce’s Democratic counterpart on the committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., also said Chavez’s
death is an “opportunity” for the people of Venezuela to “chart a new course.”
“This is a moment to review and renew our relationships with Venezuela and nations throughout the
Americas based upon fundamentally shared values that bind our entire hemisphere,” he said.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., expressed hope for a peaceful transition “with real, meaningful democratic
reforms.”
Their cards are outdated—Chavez’s death creates a political opportunity to
strengthen relations
Samay Live 3/6/13
(March 6, 2013, Samay Live,¶ “Obama: After Chavez, U.S. open to constructive ties with Venezuela,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/4/13, JC)
However, Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the Huse Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence alleged that Chavez was a destabilising force in Latin America.
"Hugo Chavez was a destabilising force in Latin America,and an obstacle to progress in the region. I hope
his death provides an opportunity for a new chapter in US-Venezuelan relations," he said.
Congressman, Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, described his death as
good riddance to a dictator. "Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in
fear. His death dents the alliance of anti-US leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this
dictator," Royce said.
Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hoped that will be
a free and fair election now.
"Hugo Chavez ruled Venezuela with an iron hand and his passing has left a political void that we hope
will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the
Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter," he said.
"With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure
respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people," Menendez added.
Stronger cooperation with Maduro is popular—the US seeks bilateral
improvements in human rights and democracy
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service specialist in Latin American Affairs,
4/9/13 (Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs,
April 9, 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Hugo Chávez’s Death: Implications for
Venezuela and U.S. Relations,” p. 6, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42989.pdf, Accessed 7/4/13, JC)
Despite tensions in relations, the Obama Administration maintains that it remains committed to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 131
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela, focusing on such areas as anti-drug and
counterterrorism efforts. In the aftermath of President Chávez’s reelection in October 2012, the
White House, while acknowledging differences with President Chávez, congratulated the
Venezuelan people on the high level of participation and the relatively peaceful election process.
Subsequently, in November 2012, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, engaged in a conversation with Vice President Maduro
about improving bilateral relations, including greater cooperation on counternarcotics issues.
In early January 2013, the State Department reiterated that the United States remained open to
dialogue with Venezuela on a range of issues of mutual interest. In light of the setback in
President Chávez’s health, a State Department spokesman maintained on January 9, 2013, that
“regardless of what happens politically in Venezuela, if the Venezuelan government and if the
Venezuelan people want to move forward with us, we think there is a path that’s possible.”11
In response to President Chávez’s death, President Obama issued the following statement:
At this challenging time of President Hugo Chávez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its
support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship
with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the
United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of
law, and respect for human rights.12
While the President’s statement did not offer traditional condolences, the State Department
maintains that it expressed U.S. sympathy to Chávez’s family and to the Venezuelan people.13
Many Latin American and other foreign leaders have expressed their condolences to Venezuela on
Chávez’s passing. The White House statement focused on the U.S. interest in getting cooperative
bilateral relations back on track while at the same time reiterating that the United States is
committed to promoting democratic practices and respect for human rights. A number of other
statements by Members of Congress also expressed hope for a new era in U.S.-Venezuelan
relations.
Chavez’s death kills political opposition to the plan
Clarke, Salt of the Earth magazine staff, 3/25/13
(Kevin, MA in International Studies from DePaul University, “Chavez Death Brings New Chance For
U.S.-Venezuela Engagement,” http://americamagazine.org/issue/chavez-death-brings-new-chance-usvenezuela-engagement, Accessed 7/9/13)
Father Carnes said Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the United States, politically and
economically, to revive its relationship with Venezuela. Occasionally “capricious and doctrinaire,”
Chávez was “someone the United States had a hard time negotiating with,” according to Father
Carnes. Whether his designated political heir, Vice President Nicholas Maduro, or an opposition
candidate, most likely Henrique Capriles Radonski, governor of the Venezuelan state of Miranda, is
elected to replace Chávez, Father Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational
leadership to emerge. That could mean improved ties not just with Venezuela but throughout the
region, he said, and a possible opening for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the
Venezuelan state oil industry . Despite Chávez’s notorious distaste for U.S. political leaders, under his
leadership Venezuela remained one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States. This is likely to
continue.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 132
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Democracy Promotion
Engagement would be popular—spun as promoting democracy
Agence France-Presse, 13
[March 5th 2013, Agence France-Presse, “Obama on the death of Hugo Chavez: We support the
Venezuelan people,” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/05/obama-on-the-death-of-hugo-chavez-wesupport-the-venezuelan-people/, Accessed 7/5/13, CB]
President Barack Obama said within hours of the death of American foe President Hugo Chavez
Tuesday that the United States was interested in a “constructive” future relationship with
Venezuela.
Antipathy in the US Congress towards the leftist champion Chavez, who died after a long battle with
cancer, meanwhile bubbled up quickly, with lawmakers branding him a tyrant and one top Republican
bluntly saying “good riddance.”
“At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its
support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the
Venezuelan government,” Obama said.
“As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that
promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights,” he said in a short written
statement.
While Obama’s statement was measured, as would be expected of a head of state, reactions to Chavez’s
death in Congress were more vituperative.
“For over a decade Chavez had used corruption, intimidation, manipulation, and brutal tactics to
rule over the Venezuelan people,” said veteran Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
“Chavez misruled Venezuela with an iron grip on the government, economy, and the courts as he
routinely bullied the media and the opposition to deny the people of Venezuela their basic freedoms.
“Today, his death marks the end of this tyrannical rule but the road to democracy for the
Venezuelan people is still very much uncertain.”
Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Chavez had ruled with
an “iron hand” and left a “political void.”
“With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure
respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people,” he said.
Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, branded Chavez a “tyrant” who forced his
people to live in fear.
“His death dents the alliance of anti-US leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator,”
Royce said in a statement.
“Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States.
“Chavez’s death sets the stage for fresh elections. While not guaranteed, closer US relations with
his key country in our hemisphere are now possible.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 133
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Drug Trade
Engagement Popular- seen as necessary to help fight the drug trade
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 37, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
In its March 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), the State
Department contended that Venezuela was one of the preferred trafficking routes for the transit of
cocaine out of South America because of a porous border with Colombia, a weak judicial system,
inconsistent international counternarcotics cooperation, generally permissive law enforcement, and
a corrupt political environment. The illicit drugs transiting Venezuela are destined for the Eastern
Caribbean, Central America, United States, Western Africa, and Europe. The report maintained that U.S.
government estimates of cocaine transiting through Venezuela were 161-212 metric tons (compared to
250 metric tons noted in the 2011 INCSR).
According to the 2012 INCSR, Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office (ONA), Venezuela seized 42
metric tons in 2011 (down from 63 metric tons in 2010), with 62% cocaine and 37% marijuana. In 2011,
Venezuela also deported three fugitives wanted on drug charges to the United States: in March, Gloria
Rojas Valencia, allegedly working for Los Zetas (a violent Mexican drug trafficking organization) in
Venezuela; in September, Lionel Scott Harris, a U.S. citizen; and in December, Maximiliano Bonilla
Orozco, also known as “Valenciano,” one of Colombia’s top drug traffickers.
The State Department maintained in the INCSR that that “the United States remains prepared to
deepen cooperation with Venezuela to help counter the increasing flow of cocaine and other
illegal drugs.” As in the past, the State Department reiterated that cooperation could be improved
through formal reengagement between Venezuelan and U.S. law enforcement agencies and the
signing of the outstanding addendum to the 1978 Bilateral Counternarcotics MOU that was
negotiated in 2005, which would provide funds for joint counternarcotics projects and demand
reduction programs. The INCSR proffered that bilateral cooperation could also include
counternarcotics and anti-money laundering training programs for law enforcement and other
officials; Venezuelan participation in the U.S. Coast Guard’s International Port Security Program;
and activation of the Container Inspection Facility at Puerto Cabello that was partially funded by
the United States in 2004. According to the INCSR, “these cooperative activities would increase
the exchange of information that could lead to arrests, help dismantle organized criminal
networks, aid in the prosecution of criminals engaged in narcotrafficking, and stem the flow of
illicit drugs transiting Venezuelan airspace, land, and sea.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 134
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Offset Iran
Engagement is popular- perceived as a way to balance Iran’s influence
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. 44, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]
Over the past several years, there has been concern among policymakers about Iran’s growing
interest and activities in Latin America, particularly its relations with Venezuela under President
Chávez, although there has been disagreement over the extent and significance of Iran’s relations
with the region. The January 2012 visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a four nation
tour to Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela increased concerns of some
policymakers about Iran’s efforts to deepen ties with Latin America.
In legislative action, the 112th Congress approved the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere
Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-220, H.R. 3783) in 2012, which the President signed into law on December 28,
2012. The House had approved the bill, amended, by voice vote on September 19, 2012, and the
Senate had approved the measure, amended, by voice vote on December 12, 2012. As enacted, the law
requires the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment within 180 days of the “threats posed to
the United States by Iran’s growing presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere” and a
strategy to address these threats. The bill also states that “it shall be the policy of the United States to
use a comprehensive government-wide strategy to counter Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity
in the Western Hemisphere by working together with United States allies and partners in the region
to mutually deter threats to United States interests by the Government of Iran, the Iranian Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the IRGC’s Qods Force, and Hezbollah.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 135
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Aid
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 136
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Congress
Congress resents foreign aid to Venezuela—Republican lash-out proves
PolitiFact 11
(2/9/11, “Ted Poe decries U.S. aid to Venezuela, Cuba,” http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aid-venezuela-cuba/, Accessed 7/6/13, JC)
In a House floor speech on Feb. 9, 2011, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, took aim at American aid to foreign
countries. Poe has introduced a bill to require separate votes on aiding specific countries, thus ending the
practice of bundling foreign aid into a single bill.
"Maybe it’s time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world," Poe said
in the floor speech, which has attracted attention in conservative circles on the Internet. "There are about
192 foreign countries in the world, … and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them."
Poe proceeded to name some examples of countries where many Americans might be uncomfortable
sending taxpayer money, including Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and China. But two of the nation’s in Poe’s
speech caught our eye -- Venezuela and Cuba.
Critics of Venezuela’s leader, Hugo Chavez, call him a dictator. Meanwhile, Cuba has been a
communist country for decades, led by Fidel Castro and now his brother Raul. In its widely followed
rankings, the group Freedom House rates Venezuela toward the bottom of the nations it classifies
as "partly free," while Cuba sits at the lower end of its "not free" scale. And both nations have strained
relations with the United States.
So Poe suggested these as two examples of what’s wrong with U.S. foreign aid.
"We give money to Venezuela. Why do we give money to Chavez and Venezuela? He hates the United
States. He defies our president, makes fun of our nation. We don’t need to give him any foreign aid.
We give $20 million to Cuba. Why do we give money to Cuba? Americans can’t even go to Cuba. It’s
off-limits. It’s a communist country. But we’re dumping money over there."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 137
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Venezuela/Cuba Aid Link – Aid Scrutinized
Aid to hostile countries is highly scrutinized – ensuring politicization of the plan
Congressional Documents and Publications, 6/27/13
[Quoting Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican Representative from Florida, “Ecuador's Cancellation of Trade
Pact and Offer of $23 Million to U.S. for "Human Rights Training" is Laughable, Says Ros-Lehtinen,”
Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the Middle East and North
Africa Subcommittee, made the following statement regarding Ecuador's decision to cancel the
renewal of its trade pact with the United States and its offer of $23 million to provide human rights
training to the U.S. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:
"Due to the fact that Congress has strongly signaled its reluctance to renew the trade preferences with
Ecuador, Rafael Correa saw the writing on the wall and has decided to cancel our trade deal. This
unilateral act is further proof that Ecuadorian leader does not want close ties with the United States
and only wishes to sabotage our bilateral relationship in order to save face following pressure from
our government for Correa to refuse asylum to Edward Snowden.
"Then as if to add insult to injury, Correa has also reportedly offered the U.S. $23 million for 'human
rights training.' This is perhaps the most laughable move by Correa to date, as it is he and his
government who are in need of training in the protection and respect of fundamental basic human
rights and democratic freedoms. This, after all, comes from the mini-Chavez who earlier this year
launched an international campaign to weaken the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
and who has consistently attempted to silence free speech and the independent media. I urge the Obama
Administration to send a clear message to Correa that his ill-considered actions will not go without
consequences and reexamine all foreign aid that goes directly to this reckless government."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 138
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Trade
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 139
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Trade
Venezuelan trade is unpopular—viewed as undemocratic and sympathetic to US
threats
Mares, Institute of the Americas chair for InterAmerican affairs, 12
(David R. Mares ¶ Institute of the Americas Chair for InterAmerican Affairs, University of California, San
Diego1/19/12, Council on Foreign Relations, “Panel 3 – Case Studies: United States: United States–
Venezuela,” https://mailattachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=aa9064a958&view=att&th=13fbac8b177fdf
fb&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_hiuolwyt1&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P8YfR1U9wXX9fQFoLrT5TW&sadet=1373228451191&sads=VLwXoBSOI396qMlA5a1FX7Khnrs, Accessed 7/7/13, JC)
The current political relationship decreases bilateral trade because Chávez seeks to build
counter-balancing relations with US rivals and only has oil to attract them. The relationship with
China in particular is important because the Chinese are also willing to provide tens of billions of
dollars in credit to the Chávez government to spend as it sees fit, with Venezuelan oil in
payment. In addition, Chávez diverts a small quantity of oil to subsidized sales to the Caribbean
and Central America to gain allies. These diversions for political reasons result in a lower
quantity available for market driven purchases, as are those of the US.
The US Congress does have a small group of anti-Chavista legislators who demand that the US
embargo Venezuelan oil, and emphasize the undemocratic nature of the Chávez government and its
Chinese, Russian and Iranian ties as threats to US national security. A few think tanks (e.g., the
Inter-American Security Watch) and interest groups are promoting these views. But so far they do not
have a large following in the Legislative and the Executive branches, where a lower
profile in opposing Chávez is perceived to be more effective, or at least less damaging to overall
US interests.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 140
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Mexico Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 141
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Generic
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 142
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Magnifier/AT – Link Turns
Can’t generate a link turn – the plan will always be spun negatively
Starr, USC US-Mexico Network director, 9
(Pamela K., university fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy and an associate professor of
teaching in the School of International Relations and in Public Diplomacy, April 2009, Pacific Council on
International Policy, “Mexico and the United States: A Window of Opportunity?”
http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=35, Accessed 7/9/13)
Actively work to redefi ne Mexico – in the minds of policy makers and of U.S. citizens – as an
opportunity rather than a problem. As long as Americans think of Mexico as mostly a source of
problems for the United States, mustering congressional support for policies that advance U.S.
national interests by “helping Mexico” will remain a hard sell . This redefi nition should include an
expansion of cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries, enlisting celebrities as
informal diplomats, and promoting contact and communication among non-governmental actors on
both sides of the border. Potentially most important, Washington must carefully guard its rhetoric about
Mexico to avoid disparaging statements that ultimately do harm to U.S. national interests.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 143
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Soft on Drugs Link Magnifier
Plan gets negatively spun as anti-drug trafficking
Shear, New York Times White House correspondent, & Archibold, New York
Times bureau chief for Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, 5/4/13
(Michael D., M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University, and
Randal C., New York Times, “In Latin America, U.S. Focus Shifts From Drug War to Economy,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/in-latin-america-us-shifts-focus-from-drug-war-toeconomy.html?pagewanted=all, Accessed 7/9/13)
Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message.
Relationships with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on
economic development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime
capos that have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their own course
on security, with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being
seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying
problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has mounted an
aggressive effort to play down its crime problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to
avoid certain slang words in reports. “The problem will not just go away,” said Michael Shifter,
president of the Inter-American Dialogue. “It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy
that includes but goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. “Obama becomes
vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the region’s overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to
economic progress,” he added. “It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long as
the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line.” Administration officials insist that Mr.
Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a change
in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in
December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war
adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Calderón. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears not
to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence,
which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs, Mr. Peña Nieto has also
moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and
mistrust between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that
the United States would no longer seek to dominate the security agenda. “It is obviously up to the
Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the
United States,” he said, standing next to Mr. Peña Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. “But the main point
I made to the president is that we support the Mexican government’s focus on reducing violence, and we
look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the Mexican government deems
appropriate.” In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to Mexico hews to a guiding principle
of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, in which American supremacy is played down, at least publicly, in favor
of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with the concerns of lawmakers in
Washington, who have expressed frustration with what they see as a lack of clarity in Mexico’s
security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement has long
clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the driver’s seat on security
marks a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and, analysts said, will
carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions
for tighter border security. “If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation
is weakening, that could play into the hands of those who oppose immigration reform,” said Vanda
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 144
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Realistically, the
border is as tight as could be and there have been few spillovers of the violence from Mexico into the
U.S.,” she added, but perceptions count in Washington “and can be easily distorted .” “Drugs today
are not very important to the U.S. public over all,” she added, “but they are important to
committed drug warriors who are politically powerful.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 145
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Human Rights Link Magnifier
Funding Mexico unpopular – human rights issues
Seelke, Congressional Research Service Latin American Affairs specialist, 1-29-13
[Clare Ribando, 1-29-13, Congressional Research Service, “Mexico and the 112th Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf, p.21-24, accessed 7-5-13, MSG]
There have been ongoing concerns about the human rights records of Mexico’s federal, state, and
municipal police. For the past several years, State Department’s human rights reports covering
Mexico have cited credible reports of police involvement in extrajudicial killings, kidnappings for
ransom, and torture.83 While abuses are most common at the municipal and state level, where
corruption and police collaboration with criminal groups often occurs, federal forces—including the
Federal Police—have also committed serious abuses. Individuals are most vulnerable to police abuses
after they have been arbitrarily detained and before they are transferred to the custody of prosecutors, or
while they are being held inpreventive detention. Some 43% of Mexican inmates are reportedly in pretrial detention.84
The Calderón government sought to combat police corruption and human rights abuses through increased
vetting of federal forces; the creation of a national police registry to prevent corrupt police from being rehired; the use of internal affairs units; and the provision of human rights training. In 2012, the government
also announced new protocols on the use of force and how detentions are to be handled that were
designed to prevent abuses. A January 2009 public security law codified vetting requirements and
professional standards for state police to be met by 2013, but progress toward meeting those standards has
been uneven. With a few exceptions, efforts to reform municipal police forces have lagged behind.
There has also been increasing concern that the Mexican military, which is less accountable to
civilian authorities than the police, is committing more human rights abuses since it is has been
tasked with carrying out public security functions. A November 2011 Human Rights Watch (HRW)
report maintains that cases of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have
increased significantly in states where federal authorities have been deployed to fight organized
crime.85 According to Mexico’s Human Rights Commission (CNDH), the number of complaints of
human rights abuses by Mexico’s National Defense Secretariat (SEDENA) increased from 182 in 2006 to
a peak of 1800 in 2009 before falling slightly to 1,695 in 2011. The Trans-Border Institute has found that
the number of abuses by SEDENA forces that have been investigated and documented by CNDH has also
declined since 2008-2009, particularly in areas where large-scale deployments have been scaled back.86
In contrast, complaints of abuses against the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) reported to CNDH
increased by 150% from 2010 to 2011 as its forces became more heavily involved in anti-DTO efforts.87
While troubling, only a small percentage of those allegations have resulted in the CNDH issuing
recommendations for corrective action to SEDENA or SEMAR, which those agencies say they have
largely accepted and acted upon.88 A June 2011 constitutional amendment gave CNDH the authority to
force entities that refuse to respond to its recommendations to appear before the Mexican Congress.
In addition to expressing concerns about current human rights abuses, Mexican and international
human rights groups have criticized the Mexican government for failing to hold military and police
officials accountable for past abuses.89 In addition to taking steps to reform the police and judiciary,
the Calderón government took some steps to comply with rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (IACHR) that cases of military abuses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts. While a
few dozen cases90 were transferred to civilian jurisdiction and former President Calderón asked
SEDENA and SEMAR to work with the Attorney General to accelerate transfers, most cases were still
processed in the military justice system.91 Military prosecutors have opened thousands of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 146
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
investigations into allegations of human rights abuses as a result of complaints filed with the
CNDH, with few having resulted in convictions.92
A reform of Article 57 of the military justice code was submitted by then-President Calderón in October
2010 mandating that at least certain human rights violations be investigated and prosecuted in civilian
courts. A more comprehensive proposal that required that all cases of alleged military human rights
violations be transferred to the civilian justice system was approved by the Mexican Senate’s Justice
Commission in April 2012; however, the bill was subsequently blocked from coming to a vote. In
September 2012, another proposal to reform Article 57 was presented in the Mexican Senate, but not
enacted. Enacting a reform of Article 57 of the military justice code may become more urgent now
for the Peña Nieto Administration now that Mexico’s Supreme Court is in the process of
establishing binding legal precedent for determining jurisdiction in cases involving alleged military
human rights violations against civilians.
Human rights defenders and journalists have been particularly vulnerable to abuses by organized
crime, sometimes acting in collusion with corrupt government authorities. Recently, several
prominent human rights defenders have been harassed, attacked, and even killed, including members of
the high-profile Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity led by Javier Sicilia. Increasing violent
crimes targeting journalists, combined with high levels of impunity for the perpetrators of those
crimes, have made Mexico the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere for journalists.
Crimes against journalists range from harassment, to extortion, to kidnapping and murder. The
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented 58 murders of journalists and at least 10 cases of
journalists disappearing in Mexico since 2000. Threats from organized crime groups have made
journalists and editors fearful of covering crimerelated stories, and in some areas coverage of the DTOs’
activities have been shut down.93
The Calderón government and the Mexican Congress took some steps to better protect human rights
defenders and journalists, but many human rights organizations have called upon the Peña Nieto
Administration to do more. The Calderón government established a special prosecutor within the
Attorney General’s Office to attend to crimes against freedom of expression and created mechanisms to
provide increased protection for journalists and human rights defenders. Those mechanisms have yet to
be effectively implemented. The Mexican Congress enacted a law to make crimes against journalists a
federal offense and a law to require the federal government to provide protection to journalists and human
rights defenders who are “at risk” of being victimized and to their families. Another law approved by the
Congress in 2012, but not promulgated by the Calderón government, would require the state to track
victims of organized crime and provide assistance to victims and their families. Human rights
organizations expressed satisfaction after President Peña Nieto signed that law, commonly referred
to as the “victims’ law,” in January 2013, but said that the real test of his government’s
commitment to human rights will be in how that and other laws are implemented.
Human Rights Conditions on U.S. Assistance to Mexico In 2008, Congress debated whether human
rights conditions should be placed on Mérida assistance beyond the requirements in §620J of the Foreign
Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961. That section was re-designated as §620M and amended by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-74). It states that an individual or unit of a foreign
country’s security forces is prohibited from receiving assistance if the Secretary of State receives
“credible evidence” that an individual or unit has committed “a gross violation of human rights.”
The FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252), which provided the first tranche of
Mérida funding, had less stringent human rights conditions than had been proposed earlier, largely
due to Mexico’s concerns that some of the conditions would violate its national sovereignty. The
conditions required that 15% of INCLE and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance be withheld
until the Secretary of State reports in writing that Mexico is taking action in four human rights areas:
1. improving transparency and accountability of federal police forces;
2. establishing a mechanism for regular consultations among relevant Mexican government authorities,
Mexican human rights organizations, and other relevant Mexican civil society organizations, to make
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 147
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
consultations concerning implementation of the Mérida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and
international law;
3. ensuring that civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in
accordance with Mexican and international law, members of the federal police and military forces who
have been credibly alleged to have committed violations of human rights, and the federal police and
military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; and
4. enforcing the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican and international law, on the use of testimony
obtained through torture or other ill-treatment.
Similar human rights conditions were included in FY2009-FY2011 appropriations measures that funded
the Mérida Initiative.95 However, the first two conditions are not included in the 15% withholding
requirement in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74). As previously mentioned,
Congress has yet to pass a final FY2013 appropriations measure. It remains to be seen whether an
omnibus bill would include the conditions on aid to Mexico that are in the Senate Appropriations
Committee’s version of the FY2013 foreign operations ppropriations measure S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112172). Those conditions would retain the condition related to torture, as well as require the State
Department to report that Mexico has reformed its military justice code and is requiring police and
military officials to immediately transfer detainees to civilian judicial authorities.
Thus far, the State Department has submitted three 15% progress reports on Mexico to congressional
appropriators (in
August 2009, September 2010, and August 2012) that have met the statutory requirements for FY2008FY2012 Mérida funds that had been on hold to be released. Nevertheless, the State Department has
twice elected to hold back some funding pending further progress in key areas of concern. In the
September 2010 report, for example, the State Department elected to hold back $26 million in
FY2010 supplemental funds as a matter of policy until further progress was made in the areas of
transparency and combating impunity.96 Those funds were not obligated until the fall of 2011.
In the August 2012 report, the State Department again decided to hold back all of the FY2012
funding that would have been subject to the conditions (roughly $18 million) as a matter of policy
until it can work with Mexican authorities to determine steps to address key human rights
challenges. Those include: improving the ability of Mexico’s civilian institutions to investigate and
prosecute cases of human rights abuses; enhancing enforcement of prohibitions against torture and other
mistreatment; and strengthening protection for human rights defenders.97
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 148
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Engagement Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 149
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Politically Divisive
Economic engagement with Mexico is politically divisive
Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, 13
(Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,”
p. 5, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf, Accessed
7/9/13)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is
underway in North America and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an
important choice to make: sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming
naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the competitiveness
of North America for the long term . Given that job creation and economic growth in both the United
States and Mexico are at stake, the choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the
magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship among the public and many
policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than
it ought to be.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 150
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Cultural Ties
Policies with Mexico are popular – Cultural relations
Jacobson, U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, 6-18-13
[Roberta, 6-18-13, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES SENATE, “TESTIMONY OF ROBERTA S. JACOBSON,” p.5,
Lexis, MSG]
The people-to-people ties that bind Mexico to the United States are strong ¶ and deep, and they
enrich both countries. One in 10 Americans – more than 30 ¶ million people – is of Mexican heritage. A
robust Mexican-American community ¶ in the United States contributes to our culture, our values,
our politics, and our ¶ social structures. Some 20 million Americans travel to Mexico every year for ¶
tourism, business, or study. The cities and towns along our common border are ¶ interconnected.
Mexico is home to the largest expatriate community of American ¶ citizens in the world –more than
one million people. These ties bring us together ¶ as families, neighbors, and friends, and contribute
to our mutual understanding. ¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 151
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Foreign Aid
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 152
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Congress
Mexican foreign aid is popular – consensus in Congress
Meyer, Latin American Affairs Analyst, & Sullivan, Latin American Affairs
Specialist, 12
[Peter and Mark, 6-26-12, Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America
and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf, accessed, 7-5-13 MSG]
Some Members have expressed concerns about the Administration’s 9% proposed decrease for Latin
America and the Caribbean, questioning whether the resources requested are adequate to address U.S.
interests in the region. There appears to be broad agreement between Congress and the
Administration regarding the importance of maintaining assistance for citizen security and
counter-narcotics efforts in Mexico, Colombia, Central America and the Caribbean. Some Members,
however, have expressed concerns about declines in assistance for these programs. Assistance for
Haiti’s recovery also appears to be a point of consensus, although some Members have called for
adequate monitoring to ensure transparency and accountability in the assistance program.64
Aid to Mexico is popular- FY2013 allocation proves
Seelke, Congressional Research Service Mexico Analyst, 13
[Clare, 1-29-13, Congressional Research Service, “Mexico and the 112th Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf, accessed 7-7-13, MSG]
The 112th Congress maintained an active interest in Mexico. The Obama Administration asked for
$269.5 million in assistance for Mexico in its FY2013 budget request. The Senate and House
Appropriations Committees’ versions of the FY2013 foreign aid measure, S. 3241 and H.R. 5857, each
recommend increases in aid to Mexico, with human rights conditions similar to P.L. 112-74. Congress
held oversight hearings, issued reports, and introduced legislation on how to bolster the Mérida Initiative
and on related U.S. domestic efforts to combat gun trafficking, money laundering, and drug
demand.
Strong congressional support for aid to Mexico
Seelke, Congressional Research Service Mexico Analyst, 13
[Clare, 1-29-13, Congressional Research Service, “Mexico and the 112th Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf, accessed 7-7-13, MSG]
There appears to be strong support in both the Senate and House for maintaining U.S. support to ¶
Mexico provided through Mérida Initiative accounts. The Administration’s FY2013 budget ¶ request
asked for $234 million in Mérida assistance for Mexico: $199 million in the International ¶ Narcotics and
Law Enforcement (INCLE) account and $35 million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. The
Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2013 foreign ¶ operations appropriations
measure, S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172), would have met the request for ¶ INCLE and provided $10 million
in additional ESF for economic development projects in the ¶ border region. S. 3241 included
restrictions on aid to the Mexican military and police. The House ¶ Appropriations Committee’s
version of the bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), would have ¶ increased INCLE funding by $49
million to match the FY2012 enacted level for that account and ¶ met the request for ESF.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 153
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
In the absence of a final FY2013 foreign appropriations measure, Congress passed a continuing ¶
resolution, H.J.Res. 117, to fund most foreign aid programs—including assistance to Mexico—at ¶
FY2012 levels plus 0.6% through March 27, 2013.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 154
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Trade
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 155
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Politically Divisive - NAFTA
NAFTA proves economic engagement sparks divisive debates over job losses
Villarreal and Fergusson, Congressional Research Service specialists in
International Trade and Finance, 2/21/13
(M. Angeles and Ian F., Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf, Accessed 7/9/13)
NAFTA was controversial when first proposed , mostly because it was the first FTA involving two
wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the
agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate
thousands of jobs and reduce income disparit y in the region, while opponents warned that the
agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to
Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the
large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy
appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a
small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three
countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies.
NAFTA is extremely unpopular in the U.S. – past committees prove
Villarreal and Fergusson, international trade and finance specialists, 2/21/13 [Angeles
and Ian, 2-21-13, Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf, accessed 7-4-13, HG]
The 113th Congress faces numerous issues related to international trade. Canada and Mexico are the
first and third largest U.S. trading partners, respectively. With the two countries participating in the
negotiations to conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement among the United States
and 10 other countries, policy issues related to NAFTA continue to be of interest for Congress. If
negotiations progress, a TPP agreement could affect the rules and market access commitments governing
North American trade and investment since NAFTA entered into force. A related trade policy issue in
which the effects of NAFTA may be explored is the possible renewal of Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA; formerly known as “fast-track authority”) to provide expedited procedures for the consideration of
bills to implement trade agreements.
NAFTA was controversial when first proposed, mostly because it was the first FTA involving two
wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the
agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate thousands
of jobs and reduce income disparity in the region, while opponents warned that the agreement
would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to Mexico to lower
costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic
gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have
been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage
of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to
more open trade and investment among their economies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 156
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
NAFTA is unpopular because it hurts farmers and leads to environmental
degradation
Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative, 11
[4-17-11, Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative, “Is NAFTA Good for Mexico and the United States?,”
http://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/NAFTA%20DI.pdf, accessed 7-5-13, HG]
The early 1990s was a favorable time for trade unions, seeing some of the most powerful nations in the
world joining forces: The European Union (EU) and South America’s Mercado Común del Sur
(MERCOSUR) were formed in 1992 and 1991, respectively. The framework for what would later become
NAFTA was laid in 1988, when discussions began concerning a trade union between the United States
and Canada. This measure was deeply unpopular with many constituents in Canada and Mexico,
who feared that NAFTA would hurt many groups, including small farmers, and would lead to
environmental degradation. Before President Clinton sent the bill to the House of Representatives, he
added clauses protecting American workers as well as environmental regulations. Still, many opponents
of NAFTA in all participating countries maintain that the agreement does not do enough to protect
workers, and that environmental regulations are difficult to enforce internationally.
NAFTA plan popular arguments are inaccurate – previous administrations had to
lie to get it to pass
Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative, 11
[4-17-11, Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative, “Is NAFTA Good for Mexico and the United States?,”
http://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/NAFTA%20DI.pdf, accessed 7-5-13, HG]
Additionally, the economy was the soft underbelly of the Bush administration’s election campaign, not
helped by Gulf War expenditures and the hang-over from Cold War excesses. Hence the Republicans
tried to overstate the economic benefits of NAFTA to win votes in the areas most likely to be
affected by the free-trade agreement, such as fruit and vegetable farmers in Florida and California,
who feared their interests were being ‘chunked out the window.’[28] Support from business leaders
was predictably linked to expanding market opportunities in Mexico as a result of free-trade. Big
businesses not only provide more votes, but they also provide electoral campaign money, and thus
their approval, demonstrated by the endorsement of NAFTA by the Coalition for Trade Expansion
(CTE) was an important political consideration for the ‘openly politicized’[29] Bush administration
who Clarkson claims was merely ‘expressing the demands of its private-sector interests.’[30] However,
free-trade leaves blue-collar workers in particular vulnerable, as low-skilled labour-intensive industries
are naturally attracted to cheap labour, an abundant Mexican commodity. Economist Harley Shaiken
sums up this argument, asking ‘why should companies invest in a high skill, high wage strategy in the
United States, when a high skill, low wage strategy is available in Mexico?’[31] The Bush
administration attempted to assuage these fears by announcing plans for re-education and retraining programmes for those workers displaced by NAFTA, but this emotive issue was quickly
pounced on by opponents.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 157
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Unions
Trade agreement with Mexico unpopular- hurts domestic production and American
workers
UAW, 12
[Ron, 1-13-12, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
“Japan's Expression of Interest in the Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement,”
http://www.uaw.org/sites/default/files/UAW%20Comments%20on%20Japan%20&%20TPP.pdf,
accessed 7-5-13, MSG]
While the United States is currently negotiating the trade agreement that covers relationships with eight
other countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam—the Obama Administration has repeatedly expressed its goal of building "an agreement that
expands out progressively to include countries across the Asia-Pacific region." UAW has serious
concerns regarding the premature expansion of the TPP negotiations to include Japan, Mexico,
Canada, or any other nation, before our negotiators first demonstrate an ability to formulate and
successfully negotiate a "transformative agreement for the 21SI Century," that will produce genuine
benefits for American workers and increase domestic production. The primary goal must be to
maximize employment opportunity for workers, not simply to maximize profits for multinational
corporations looking to further globalize their supply chains.
Trade with Mexico is unpopular – unions do not like it
Perez-Rocha, Foreign Policy in Focus, & Trew, Foreign Policy in Focus, 12
[Manuel and Stuart, 6-26-12, Foreing Policy in Focus, “Don’t Expand NAFTA,”
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta, accessed 7-5-13, MSG]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for
the FTAA. So it is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that
former attempt to expand the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere.
The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its case. In
their statement, North American unions “call on our governments to work with us to include in the
TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy environment, safe food and
products, and the ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic
crises.” But the truth is that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists
having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text.
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are “troubled
that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” They have
written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper
consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the
wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on
critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the representatives
also challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of
negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on
state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for
their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations.
What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the
TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 158
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 159
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Jobs
Trade with Mexico unpopular- hurts U.S. and Mexican jobs- NAFTA proves
Aguilar, Texas Tribune, 12
[Julian, 12-7-12, Texas Tribune, “After 20 Years, NAFTA Draws Praise and Controversy,”
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/twenty-years-nafta-drawspraise-and-controversy/, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
But opponents of trade pacts say that NAFTA has resulted in a loss of manufacturing and shipping
jobs in the U.S. and in less oversight of production. They say that NAFTA has also caused the
displacement of Mexican agricultural workers into other sectors, or forced them to immigrate
illegally to the United States.
“There have been huge disparities in the number of people entering the workforce and the number
of jobs available,” said Timothy A. Wise, the policy research director at the Global Development and
Environment Institute at Tufts University. “That resulted in the huge migration problem despite the
increased enforcement.”
Mexican trade unpopular- NAFTA proves free trade policies hurt jobs and
development
Aguilar, Texas Tribune, 12
[Julian, 12-7-12, Texas Tribune, “After 20 Years, NAFTA Draws Praise and Controversy,”
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/twenty-years-nafta-drawspraise-and-controversy/, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy group with offices in Washington and Austin, cites U.S.
Department of Labor data to support what it says is a negative impact on the American workforce
because of rising imports or off shoring production.
In Texas alone, Public Citizen reported, there have been almost 2,500 companies whose workers or
union affiliates have filed petitions with the department for training or temporary assistance under
its Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
Wise said that although NAFTA made Mexico a manufacturing giant, the pact provides examples of
what countries with emerging economies should avoid. Free trade policies, commonly referred to in
Mexico as neoliberalism, should be scrutinized less for the tariffs they eliminate and more for how
they work as development strategies.
“It was a striking and dramatic failure compared to other countries that did not follow such paths,”
he said. Wise acknowledged Mexico’s increase in manufacturing jobs, but he said they were not at the
level needed to account for losses in other industries, like grain production. “Foreign investment
quadrupled, trade overall tripled, so that’s a measure of success,” he said. "What it didn’t produce is
jobs and development.”
The end result is that Mexico’s growth rates were lower than other emerging economies that were in
similar stages of development, he said. A key reason is that while foreign investment surged, domestic
investment in Mexico dipped. “When everybody touts the benefits of foreign investment coming in,
they discount the fact that domestic investment was displaced,” Wise said. “Investment in the economy
was well below the levels that were needed to stimulate dynamic growth. In China they are investing 35
percent dynamic growth, and economists say you need 25 percent or more, Mexico is at 19 percent.”
Robert Pastor, the director at the Center for North American Studies at American University, said job
losses and gains under NAFTA can be credited to a universal element in global commerce: competition.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 160
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
“NAFTA or globalization increases competition which, by definition, has winners and losers,” he
said. “The people who lose are those who are not very well educated. This is true, not just because of
trade, but because of automation and technological change and of a lot of structural change in the
economy.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 161
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Trade
Trade with Mexico is popular- Mexico & The U.S. are economically interdependent
Jacobson, U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, 6-18-13
[Roberta, 6-18-13, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES SENATE, “TESTIMONY OF ROBERTA S. JACOBSON,” p.2,
Lexis, MSG]
The United States and Mexico share one of the world's most vibrant and mutually beneficial
economic relationships. Our economic links are the linchpin of our overall relationship. We are
partners in an integrated enterprise whose success depends on us working together. Given the high degree
of intra-industry trade, much of what we import consists of U.S. exports to Mexico processed further in
Mexico. U.S. companies have more than $91 billion invested in Mexico, while Mexican companies are
increasing their investment in the American economy, currently nearly $27.9 billion.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of our trade relationship with Mexico. In 2012, two-way
merchandise trade reached nearly $500 billion and services trade was $39 billion in 2011. Mexico is our
second largest export market and third largest overall trading partner. We sell more to Mexico than we do
to Brazil, Russia, India, and China combined. The United States is Mexico's largest trading partner.
Together with Canada, Mexico and the United States comprise one of the most successful and
competitive economic platforms in the world today. We have taken steps to strengthen that trading
relationship. Last October, the United States and eight other countries welcomed Mexico (and Canada) to
join the negotiations for the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPP is a high-standard, 21st century trade
agreement that includes countries from one of the fastest- growing regions in the world.
Trade with Mexico popular with economists and policymakers- NAFTA proves
Aguilar, Texas Tribune, 12
[Julian, 12-7-12, Texas Tribune, “After 20 Years, NAFTA Draws Praise and Controversy,”
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/twenty-years-nafta-drawspraise-and-controversy/, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
The pact has benefited all three members. In 2010, the U.S. had $918 billion in two-way trade with
Canada and Mexico, according to U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk’s office.
Economists say that progress has come despite enhanced global security measures following the
Sept. 11 attacks and an eruption of drug-related violence in Mexico. During a recent symposium here,
economists and policymakers celebrated NAFTA’s success and brainstormed on how build on it
and bolster economic output. The symposium concluded with a clear message: The future is wide open.
“We must continue to build upon NAFTA and think more as a region in order to be more
competitive globally,” said Gerónimo Gutiérrez, the managing director of the North American
Development Bank, which was created by the governments of Mexico and the U.S. after NAFTA’s
inception and helps finance and develop infrastructure projects on the border.
Trade with Mexico popular- doesn’t actually cause job loss and increases trade
Aguilar, Texas Tribune, 12
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 162
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
[Julian, 12-7-12, Texas Tribune, “After 20 Years, NAFTA Draws Praise and Controversy,”
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/twenty-years-nafta-drawspraise-and-controversy/, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
Supporters say NAFTA was not conceived to solve domestic problems for any member country.
Instead, they say, the growth in the nations’ GDPs speaks to the pact’s positive effects. They include
the creation of 6 million jobs in the U.S. as a result of NAFTA policies, more than $500 billion in
goods and services traded between the U.S. and Mexico, and the ports of Laredo and El Paso being
among the United States’ busiest.
Through September, about $172.5 billion in trade with Mexico passed through the Laredo port and
about $65 billion through El Paso, according to U.S. census data analyzed by WorldCity, which tracks
global trade patterns. Canada remains the country’s top partner, with $462.3 billion in trade during the
same time frame, ahead of China, which is at $389.7 billion and Mexico, with $369.5 billion.
“I don’t think that NAFTA was created to alleviate every single social problem in Mexico. It could
not, and it has not,” Gutiérrez said. “I think that Mexico would be worse off if it wasn’t for NAFTA
today.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 163
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Oil & Gas
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 164
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Oil & Gas
Cooperation with Mexican hydrocarbon industry controversial – sparks debate
Montes, Wall Street Journal, 6/18/13
[Juan, 6-18-13, Wall Street Journal, “Mexico in Talks to Open Energy Sector to private Companies,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578551810770396702.html, accessed 7-6-13,
HG]
The proposal, not yet released publicly, could fall short of what some oil companies would like to
see. For instance, officials said companies may not get paid in oil itself, but rather in cash for oil at
market prices. The restriction is aimed at appeasing Mexican nationalists who fret about the
symbolism of handing over the country's oil. Officials insist Pemex will remain in state hands and
that the state will continue to own the country's hydrocarbon resources.
But the changes, if passed, would be a huge step forward for a country that has among the world's most
restrictive energy laws. Experts say only North Korea has a more closed energy market.
"If they finally do it, this would undoubtedly be a game-changing reform," said Carlos Elizondo, a
political analyst at Mexico's CIDE college and research institute. "That's the kind of change in the oil
sector that every government in Mexico has dreamed of, and hasn't been able to do, for the last 20
years."
Gas and oil pipelines are controversial – make environmentalists angry
Stevenson, Huffington Post, 6-18-13
[Aiko, 6-18-13, Huffington Post, “Obama 2.0: The Climate Rescue Plan,” lexis, accessed 7-4-13, MSG]
Hints at Obama's second-term green agenda come four months after the president vowed to tackle
the problem during his stirring State of the Union address.
But, any plan that Obama does have will not be enough to placate environmentalists if he decides to
approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
Dubbed as the "fuse to the largest carbon bomb[15] on the planet", the project hopes to transport
"dirty" oil from the Canadian tar sands down to refineries in New Mexico.
Such oil releases far more carbon emissions than conventional fossil fuels because it requires huge
amounts of energy to both extract and transport.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 165
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Offshore Drilling
Expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico causes political backlash
Hobson, National Journal energy and environmental correspondent, 12
[Margret, 4-18-12, E&E Publishing, “Obama’s Development Plans Gain Little Political Traction in Years
since Gulf Spill,” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059963022, accessed 7-4-13, HG]
That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior
Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,
environmental protection and oil spill preparation.
An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the
measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate."
As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,
Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital . The
environmental community hates the drilling proposals . The Republicans and oil industry officials
complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by
the president's rhetoric.
According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia
don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that
once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies,
participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more
energy independent."
A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey
found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental
protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority.
In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the
nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's
Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to
convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato
said.
"He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a
middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work."
Controversial offshore drilling is hugely unpopular with Congress and causes
backlash from Democrats
Geman, energy and environment reporter for the Hill, 10
[Ben, 4-1-10, The Hill, “Obama’s Offshore Drilling Push Shakes Up Congressional Fight Over Climate
Change”, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-, accessed
7-7-13, HG]
President Barack Obama’s offshore drilling proposal has shaken up the Capitol Hill climate change
fight.
The White House has been emphasizing its support for nuclear power and oil drilling as it courts
Republican — and centrist Democratic — endorsements of greenhouse gas emissions curbs. Under the administration plan, the Interior Department will proceed with a lease sale for companies
interested in drilling 50 miles off the Virginia coast before 2012. Leasing off the coasts of other midAtlantic and Southeastern states would be authorized in Interior’s 2012-2017 program.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 166
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The White House is also calling for opening a major swath of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is
mostly off-limits under a 2006 Gulf drilling law.
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, expanded drilling in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in
the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor.
Republicans called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas.
The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of
the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new
support.
“One obvious implication of today’s announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental
Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to ‘sweeten’ a climate bill by restoring or accelerating
sales,” ClearView states.
But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — risk losing support among liberal Democrats
and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling.
For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday.
“Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal
economies,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement.
Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill
— such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal.
Both the GOP and Democrats are highly polarized on offshore drilling – causes
backlash
Geman, energy and environment reporter for the Hill, 10
[Ben, 4-1-10, The Hill, “Obama’s Offshore Drilling Push Shakes Up Congressional Fight Over Climate
Change”, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-, accessed
7-7-13, HG]
Republicans were generally lukewarm — at best — to the Obama administration plan Wednesday,
and many attacked the proposal, calling it too modest. The plan also scuttles some proposed Alaska
lease sales.
White House spokesman Bill Burton largely deflected questions Wednesday about whether the drilling
push would help the push for climate change legislation.
“I would say that it’s obviously a part of the climate legislation and the entire package that the
president is working with Congress to move forward,” he said when asked about the implications of
the drilling plan on the Capitol Hill climate change debate.
“So I would say that this is mostly about coming through on a promise that he made to the American
people that he would have a comprehensive energy plan that would include some increased domestic
production of energy but also some big investments in renewable technology, as well as finding ways to
promote efficiency and things like that. So all these things are connected,” he added.
Something else to watch: Several lawmakers who support wider offshore drilling want the Senate
energy and climate bill to give coastal states a nice cut of what could be billions of dollars in leasing
and royalty revenue.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a centrist swing vote in the climate fight, on Wednesday applauded the plan to
proceed with leasing off Virginia’s coast — but reiterated his call for Virginia to receive a share of the
money.
“This policy should be coupled with a fair and equitable formula for profit-sharing between the federal
and state government in order to attract well-paying jobs to the commonwealth and support a range of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 167
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
projects, from clean energy development to transportation infrastructure to coastal restoration,” Webb
said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 168
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital – Transboundary Agreement
Technical cooperation in Mexico’s energy infrastructure is politically controversial
Committee on Foreign Relations 12
(Standing committee of the United States Senate, 12/21/12, U.S. Government Printing Office, “Oil,
Mexico, and the Transboundary Agreement,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT112SPRT77567/html/CPRT-112SPRT77567.htm, Accessed 7/9/13)
The TBA further contains requirements of data sharing and notification of likely reserves between
the United States and Mexico, opening the opportunity for increased government-to- government
collaboration on strategic energy policy choices. Mexico and the United States are relatively less
advanced in effective communication and linkages of our energy systems than we are in less
politically-controversial economic areas. Improved ties can improve understanding and galvanize
cooperation in often unexpected ways. In the immediate term, closer oil sector communication will be
beneficial in case of accidents in the Gulf of Mexico or in case of significant disruptions to global oil
supplies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 169
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Offshore Drilling Bipartisan
Energy reform and continued offshore drilling popular – jobs and energy security
Kelley, Research Analyst at Energy Acuity, 12
[Mike, 9-7-12, Energy Acuity, “Energy Policy’s Impact on the 2012 Presidential Debate”,
http://www.energyacuity.com/blog/bid/217770/Energy-Policy-s-Impact-on-the-2012-Presidential-Race,
accessed 7-7-13, HG]
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office cites 70% of the nation’s oil and gas reserves as
available for drilling already, making it unclear as to the extent to which Romney’s plan will increase
actual energy yields (3). An emphasis in off-shore exploration is expected to bolster our nation’s fuel
production but we must remain mindful of the potential for disaster, as shown by the recent Deepwater
Horizon tragedy. Romney notes that exploration in the Mid-Atlantic, which is currently prohibited, has
received continuous bipartisan support (4). It’s worth noting that this support is from Virginia State
Senators, whose responsibility is primarily to their constituents. Sen. Jim Webb (D) mentions
improvements to his commonwealth’s economy as a primary reason to support development in the MidAtlantic. When discussing national energy policy, this inherent danger of porkbarrel politics, the
allocation of federal funds for use in largely localized projects, cannot be ignored. Even still, at our
current pace of development, the EIA (Energy Information Administration) predicts the US can
eliminate its net imports of natural gas and reduce imports of oil to 38% by 2020. A majority of
the necessary oil imports remaining will be sourced from Canada and Mexico, an idea that has
continually attracted bipartisan support (5). If we’re going to be approaching North American energy
independence by 2020 anyways, than the question becomes whether the actions proposed by Romney to
further accelerate domestic production are worth the potential externalities.
One key factor in achieving energy independence not discussed in this report is the fate of existing CAFE
(Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. President Obama implemented standards in May 2010
which aim to achieve a fuel economy of 34.5 mpg in model year 2016 vehicles. The EIA cites these new
standards as a contributing factor to the 124,000 barrel per day decrease in US gasoline consumption
during the first quarter of 2012 as compared to 2011. In an effort to continue this positive trend, this
summer President Obama implemented new standards aimed at improving nationwide fuel economy for
2017-2025 (54.5 mpg in model year 2025 vehicles) (6). The EIA predicts this new measure will save 1.4
million barrels of oil per day by 2035 when compared to a simple extension of the 2012-2016 standards
(7). This decision has been received with staunch opposition from the Republican Party, including the
new Presidential hopeful. Romney has been open in his opposition of the CAFE standards, stating that
they “hurt domestic automakers and provided a benefit to some of the foreign automakers” (8). Not only
would Romney be expected to rescind the new standards but could repeal the 2012-2016 standards which
have already had a tangible effect on foreign oil imports. Despite these accusations, the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration expects these standards to reduce our consumption of oil by 4
billion barrels and the BlueGreen Alliance predicts an additional 570,000 jobs by 2030 as a result of
this policy (9). Certainly these standards present an opportunity to increase our energy
independence without the risks of increasing offshore drilling or opening federal lands for
exploration.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 170
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Offshore drilling and cooperation in the Gulf is popular and supported by
policymakers – willing to cooperate on environmental standards
Hiar, former staff writer for the Center for Public Integrity, the Huffington Post,
and PBS MediaShift, 1/23/13
[Corbin, 1-23-13, SNL Electric Utility Report, “New congressional push for oil, gas revenue sharing
includes renewable energy,” Lexis, accessed 7-4-13, HG]
In addition to the renewable measures, the bill's authors are considering other options to gain
Democratic support. For Landrieu; Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.; and other lawmakers in states with
the potential for offshore oil and gas drilling, the bill would immediately entitle their constituents to
between 27.5% and 37.5% of energy production revenues, instead of having to wait until 2017 for
the second phase of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act to take effect.
Landrieu, whose state has already collected more than $6 million from phase one of the revenue-sharing
law, is also pushing to remove the $500 million annual revenue cap included in the 2006 measure. "It's
there for budget scoring reasons," Dillon said. "But that's something that's being discussed."
The bill's sponsors also may be open to considering popular measures that were used to push
previous attempts at revenue sharing. Dillon said the authors would "be happy" to revisit the issue
of offshore drilling safety, but he said that since the reform measure died in 2011, the DOI and the
Obama administration "were able to do a lot of those things they wanted to do administratively."
He said, "So we're not sure at this moment if there's any need for legislation."
The clean energy trust fund also may be on the table. Murkowski also has talked to Wyden about "taking
another look at how we finance deployment of new technologies," Dillon said. However, he cautioned
that "we are still working with co-sponsors and Landrieu on the revenue sharing, so the details may
change, but this is just what the outline looks like at this moment."
Reaction to the prospective legislation from industry groups across the spectrum has so far been
cautiously optimistic. The American Petroleum Institute supports expanded offshore oil and gas
production, "and state revenue sharing should be a part of that equation," the trade group's upstream
director, Erik Milito, said in an email.
Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch said in an email that, "in general, we
are supportive of revenue sharing between the federal and state governments as it has worked well
for other energy sectors." The American Wind Energy Association did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has approved 18 solar energy projects on
federal land that, if built, will produce more than 6,100 MW of power, according to DOI figures. Since
2009, seven wind projects worth nearly 3,900 MW also have been approved; 566 MW of wind energy
had been approved on federal land prior to that.
The bill's sponsors remain confident that their efforts to broaden the appeal of revenue sharing to more
states and constituencies will help this latest measure secure passage in the 113th Congress. "We want to
move this legislation," Dillon said. "This isn't a message bill; this is something we think is important to
actually accomplish."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 171
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Oil & Gas Development
There’s bipartisan support for oil and gas development
Straessle, API Spokesman, 6-5-13
[Brian, 6-05-13, American Petroleum Institute, “Support for Expanding Offshore Energy Development Is
Broad, Bipartisan”, http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2013/june-2013/support-forexpanding-offshore-energy-development-is-broad-bipartisan, accessed 7-05-13, AMS]
There is broad and bipartisan support from the public and policymakers at the state and federal
level for expanding access to offshore oil and natural gas development, API Director of Upstream &
Industry Operations Erik Milito told reporters this afternoon:
“The United States has an opportunity that few nations ever get. We have a chance to be a
dominant player in global energy markets and guarantee our energy security for decades ahead.
Achieving this feat must include tapping into oil and natural gas resources off our coasts in the
Atlantic, Pacific, the Arctic and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
“There is broad support from both policymakers and the public, and we need to begin taking the
steps to ensure the nation’s long-term energy security. Offshore oil and natural gas production is a
long-term effort that requires long-term planning.
“We urge President Obama to work with Congress, the states and the industry to take advantage of the
valuable opportunity presented by expanding access to offshore energy production and by expanding
revenue sharing for coastal states. The benefits for American families, businesses, and our long-term
energy security are too great to let this opportunity slip away.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 172
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Transboundary Agreement
Mexican oil agreement is bipartisan
Crooks and Thomson, Financial Times, 12
[Ed and Adam, 2-20-12, Financial Times, “US and Mexico in landmark oil deal,”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e0d550a-5bec-11e1-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YOVL63EL, accessed
7-7-13, MSG]
However, the agreement is a signal of the commitment by the US and Mexico to accelerate the
development of their resources. It also includes a plan for joint safety inspections by US and Mexican
regulators of oil and gas projects along the maritime boundary, a priority for the US following the 2010
Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Most analysts agree that increased US oil production would have little effect on fuel prices, which are set
in world markets.
But, the rising price of petrol in the US, driven by tension with Iran, has become an issue that is being
highlighted by Republicans. That has added to the pressure on the Obama administration to be seen to be
moving to help increase oil supplies.
Ken Salazar, US secretary of the interior, described the deal as a “win-win” for the US and Mexico.
The agreement follows a joint commitment made in May 2010 by Barack Obama, US president, and
Felipe Calderón, president of Mexico.
The Obama administration has been pushing for increased oil and gas production in the US, albeit
not at the pace sought by the industry and many Republicans.
The administration was criticised for suspending deepwater drilling in the gulf for six months after the BP
spill, and for regulators’ slow pace in subsequently issuing permits.
However, the administration has since moved to sell more drilling rights in the gulf, and is on track
to allow oil exploration in the Arctic waters of Alaska this summer.
There’s bipartisan support for the Agreement
Rep. Duncan, Republican-South Carolina, 7-3-13
[Jeff, 7-03-13, The Washington Times, “DUNCAN: A step toward American energy independence”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/3/a-step-toward-american-energy-independence/,
accessed 7-05-13, AMS]
It is in order to free and grow our energy economy that the House recently passed H.R. 1613, the Outer
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement. This legislation would implement a
first-of-its-kind agreement with the government of Mexico to develop shared resources located
between our two countries in the Gulf of Mexico. It would open roughly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf
for production, and it would help create American jobs and grow our economy in the process.
According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the U.S. State Department, these areas are
estimated to contain 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas, a
considerable amount that will lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy. The
agreement also prioritizes safety by requiring that all operations in the region conform to U.S.
safety standards, and it establishes a framework for possible future arrangements with neighboring
countries such as Canada. Simply put, this legislation is a win-win for our country and received
bipartisan support in committee and on the House floor. In fact, a recent editorial in the Greenville
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 173
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
News stated, “the subject of energy security demands and invites bipartisanship; it is difficult to disagree
on a bill that clearly benefits everyone involved.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 174
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Popular – Oil Lobby
Plan’s popular with oil and gas lobbies – outweighs the link
Porretto, Associated Press, 9
(John, 6/19/9, Associated Press, “Oil lobby floods D.C.,”
http://www.telegram.com/article/20090619/NEWS/906190443/1002, Accessed 7/9/13)
HOUSTON — Oil and gas companies have accelerated their spending on lobbying faster than any
other industry, training their gusher of profits on Washington to fight new taxes on drilling and slow
efforts to move the nation off fossil fuels. The industry spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and
federal agencies in the first three months of this year, on pace to shatter last year's record . Only the
drug industry spent more. Last year's total of $129 million was up 73 percent from two years earlier.
That's a faster clip than any other major industry, according to data from the Center for
Responsive Politics. From the late 1990s through the first half of this decade, the oil industry spent
roughly $50 million to $60 million a year on lobbying. It ramped up lobbying in 2006, when Democrats
retook Congress, and further as President Barack Obama took office. “They're under attack, they're
ramping up their operations and they've got money to spend,” said Tyson Slocum, who runs the
energy program at watchdog group Public Citizen. “They're in a much better position than other
industries to draw upon financial resources for their lobbying effort.” Billions of dollars in oil profits
in recent years have made the industry a target for new and higher taxes on exploration and drilling. Oil
companies and refiners are also trying to blunt the impact of costly climate change legislation pushed by
Obama. While most oil and gas executives acknowledge the nation needs cleaner energy, they say
lawmakers are misguided about how quickly it can happen. They warn that taxes and tighter rules on
exploration could cripple the industry before new technology is developed. Complex issues like that
“require additional communication and effort to ensure lawmakers understand our positions,” said Alan
Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company. Exxon
Mobil was the biggest spender in the first quarter, pumping $9.3 million into Washington — three
times what it spent a year ago, according to House disclosure reports. In its House filing, Exxon
noted it lobbied on high-profile topics such as climate and tax legislation, as well as provisions regarding
the chemical industry, education and health care. Combined, the three largest U.S. oil companies —
Exxon, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips — spent about $22 million on lobbying in the first
quarter. Smaller, independent companies that produce the bulk of the nation's crude and natural
gas are spending millions, too. They're spending more even as profits have subsided. The big three
U.S. oil companies spent just $12.4 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter. First-quarter spending on
lobbying by the oil industry trailed only drugmakers and health products companies, which spent $66.6
million. “I can tell you, I've had substantially more visits than usual,” said Rep. Gene Green, whose south
Texas district is in the heart of oil country. Among his callers, he said, have been representatives of
ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to discuss climate-change legislation and other matters. To a degree,
the investment appears to be paying off. On Wednesday, a Senate committee voted to lift a ban on
drilling across a vast area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provision, which the industry pushed for,
is included in a bill that would expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The
bill now goes to the full Senate. Democrats from oil states have also managed to get rid of a provision in
an anti-pollution bill to require refiners to meet a standard on low-carbon motor fuel. Refiners say the bill
would still be devastating to business. Most major industries have increased what they spend on
lobbying, but no one has done so at a faster clip over the past two years than oil and gas companies,
according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The enormous amount of money funneled
to Washington by energy companies comes after some members of Congress suggested slapping the big
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 175
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
oil companies with a windfall profits tax last year, when Americans were seething over $4-a-gallon gas.
Democrats — who also took the majority of state legislatures and governorships in 2006 —
traditionally have not been as cozy with the oil sector as Republicans, and the energy lobby has
spent the past few years trying to make inroads. “You'll often see a correlation between spending
and an industry or company that's in the hot seat,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for
Responsive Politics' executive director. “That will be enough to get them to hire additional guns
and direct more money to lobbying.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 176
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Trafficking
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 177
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unopular – Trafficking Enforcement
More resources for trafficking assistance will spark debate – members of Congress
do not want more investment
Seelke, Congressional Research Service Latin American Affairs specialist, 1-29-13
[Clare Ribando, 1-29-13, Congressional Research Service, “Mexico and the 112th Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf, p.20-21, accessed 7-5-13, MSG]
Mexican and bilateral investigations and prosecutions against human trafficking have intensified since
Mexico reformed its federal criminal procedure code to criminalize trafficking in late 2007. All of
Mexico's states have enacted code reforms that criminalize at least some forms of human trafficking.
Since 2007, the State Department has removed Mexico from its human trafficking watch list and ranked it
as a "Tier 2" country (the second-best out of four categories) in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP)
reports, reflecting this progress. According to the State Department’s TIP report covering 2011, Mexico
convicted 14 sex traffickers in 2011, but did not report any convictions for forced labor. Observers
maintain that the number of prosecutions recorded is low relative to the scale of the human
trafficking problem in Mexico. The Mexican Congress recently approved a new law against trafficking
that amends the 2007 federal anti-TIP law and includes prison sentences of up to 40 years for people
convicted of sexual exploitation. Yet the Congress also cut funding for anti-TIP efforts and for the
Attorney General's Office in 2012.
Many Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and human
trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support. One way to increase Mexico's role in
migration enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments in these programs. The
United States also could include migration control as an explicit priority within other existing programs,
such as the Mérida Initiative. On the other hand, Mexico is already among the largest recipients of U.S.
anti-TIP assistance in the Western Hemisphere, and some Members of Congress may be reluctant
to invest more resources in such programs.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 178
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Immigration
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 179
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Controversial
Immigration is a hot button issue
Tweney, Venture Beat, 6-30-13
[Dylan, 6-30-13, Venture Beat, “Silicon Valley immigration reformers set their sights on Congress,”
http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/30/immigration-reformers-target-congress/, accessed 7-5-13, MSG]
Now that the Senate has passed the controversial immigration reform bill, Silicon Valley companies and
their lobbyists are targeting the next hurdle: the House of Representatives.
Up next: a July 10 meeting for the House Republican Conference, which lobbyists hope will shed some
light on immigration reform’s chances in the House.
Immigration reform faces a much bigger challenge in the Republican-controlled House than it did in
the Democratic-led Senate. Still, the Senate’s immigration bill was a carefully-crafted bipartisan effort, so
there is some cause for Silicon Valley to be hopeful.
Hopeful, that is, because opening the doors to more skilled immigrants is key to the technology industry’s
success, many believe. Many voices have been mobilized to speak out in favor of increasing immigration
quotas for foreigners who have computer skills, including a new lobbying group, FWD.us, that is backed
by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other tech industry titans. Immigrants not only help fill the
ranks of technical employees at many Silicon Valley companies, they have also founded nearly half of the
Fortune 500. Meanwhile, other countries, such as Canada, have created ‘startup visa’ programs to
encourage entrepreneurship among immigrants.
But it’s a political hot-button issue. To get the bill passed, tradeoffs may include an even more
beefed-up border with Mexico, more immigration enforcement, and maybe even a biometric
database tracking every American.
Immigration unpopular- bill unpopular in the Senate
Espo, Associated Press Special Correspondent, 6-25-13
[David, 6-25-13, Associated Press, “GOP divided on immigration; House uncertain,” lexis, accessed 7-413, MSG]
"I believe a large bipartisan vote will wake up our colleagues ... in the House," Schumer said shortly
before the Senate inserted a requirement for 20,000 new Border Patrol agents and a total of 700 miles
of fencing along the border with Mexico.
"Hopefully, as congressmen look how their senators voted, they will be influenced by it."
In the key Senate showdown so far, 15 Republicans voted to advance the legislation that toughens border
security at the same time it creates a chance at citizenship for 11 million immigrants living in the United
States illegally. Another 27 voted to keep the bill bottled up.
Republicans who voted to block the legislation generally did so after saying it would not deliver on
its promise of operational control of the border.
"When you look at it, it doesn't, and they know it," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said of the bill's backers,
who quickly disputed the charge.
A political pattern emerged, as well.
Among Republicans who are seeking a new term next year and as a result face the risk of a primary
challenge, only three voted with supporters of the measure. Eight did not, a group that includes the party's
two top leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Cornyn of Texas, as well as
Sessions, who has been one of the bill's principal opponents across three weeks of debate.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 180
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
While party leaders long have looked to immigration legislation as a way to broaden appeal among
Hispanic voters, individual members of Congress report a different perspective.
"It's hard to argue with the polling they've been getting from the national level," Texas Republican
Rep. Kenny Marchant said recently, referring to polls that show support for border security along
with legalization. Yet in his own district in the suburbs west of Dallas, he said, proposals along the
lines of the Senate bill are "very unpopular."
Immigration is unpopular—Republicans do not think it is money well spent
Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau, & Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau, 621-13
[Lisa and Brian, 6-21-13, The Baltimore Sun, “'Border surge' eyed to lift bill; Senate's $30B plan would
boost drones, agents -- and maybe GOP votes,” lexis, accessed 7-4-13, MSG]
WASHINGTON -- The Senate is poised to approve an immigration proposal that would indelibly
change security at the U.S. border with Mexico, doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and
tripling the number of drones -- a $30 billion plan designed to win the votes of as many as 15
Republican senators with a military-style buildup.
The plan would add so many new agents to the Border Patrol -- 20,000 -- that if all were deployed
at once, they could be stationed roughly every 250 feet from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of
Mexico.
Spending that amount -- more than four times what senators initially proposed -- would also be a boost to
defense contractors and an economic stimulus for border communities.
The proposed "border surge" at a time of budget austerity and record low numbers of illegal crossings had
even backers expressing doubts. But they said it would provide political protection to allow
Republicans to vote for a measure that remains unpopular with many of their constituents.
"I don't know if it's money well spent," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who helped negotiate the
new agreement. "It's important that we do this to give people confidence we have border security, so
in that respect, I think it's well spent."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 181
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Unpopular – Open Borders
Absent tougher border security an immigration bill is dead on arrival—open
borders have no chance with House Republicans
Breitbart News 7/8/13
(Mike Flynn, “HOUSE UNLIKELY TO PASS A 'PATHWAY' TO ANYTHING,”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/08/house-is-not-going-to-pass-a-pathway-toanything, Accessed 7/11/13, JC)
Now that the Senate has passed its amnesty legislation, attention turns next to the House, which returns
Monday for three weeks of work before the month-long August recess. Supporters of the Senate bill
had hoped action on the issue in that chamber would put pressure on the House to act. Speaker
Boehner, however, has already said the Senate bill is DOA in the House. The most likely outcome is
the passage of narrow legislation focused primarily on border security and enforcement.
The foundational flaw in the Senate bill is that it trades nearly-immediate legalization for a promise of
increased security and enforcement in the future. Obama's decision last week to ignore, for at least one
year, a major provision of ObamaCare shows the folly of that bargain.
If the Obama Administration won't enforce laws it supported, what chance is there that it will enforce
provisions it either doesn't support or believes are unnecessary? The strongest security and
enforcement mechanisms are worthless if the Administration simply chooses to ignore them.
Rep. Steve King told Breitbart News, "What's the point of passing news laws if Obama isn't going to
enforce them?"
The only certainty provided in the Senate bill is a multi-year "pathway to citizenship." Some in the
House have discussed a "pathway to legalization," that would allow current illegal immigrants to
remain in the country but not have the opportunity to become citizens. Many activists consider either
"path" amnesty. Without assurances that the border will be secured and enforcement increased,
opposition to any "pathway" will intensify.
Of the fourteen GOP Senators who voted for the amnesty bill, only three are up for reelection next
year. In the House, every member of the GOP caucus is up for reelection. For the overwhelming
majority, a primary challenge is the only thing that could knock them out of Congress. For many, it
would be political suicide to support anything resembling the Senate bill. Members of Congress are
not in the habit of committing political suicide.
Open borders immigration reform is political suicide—even the moderate GOP’s
support collapses without stronger enforcement
Crouere, Bayou Buzz staff, 6/14/13
(Jeff, Bayou Buzz, “Kevorkian Rubio’s immigration reform is political suicide,”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zSOqVWi9p2YJ:www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/ite
m/488125-kevorkian-rubio%E2%80%99s-immigration-reform-is-politicalsuicide+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us, Accessed 7/11/13, JC)
It is clear why Democrats like Obama support the bill. They know that once 11-20 million illegal
immigrants are given the right to vote, the vast majority will support the Democratic Party. Yet, why are
Rubio and other Republican moderates supporting this bill? The negative ramifications for the GOP
could be quite severe. In the last election, 77 percent of Hispanic voters cast their ballot for Barack
Obama. If this bill is passed, red states like Texas will become blue and then the GOP can forget
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 182
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
about ever winning another presidential election. It seems like Rubio has a death wish for the
Republican Party. It is why columnist Ann Coulter calls him “the Jack Kevorkian of the Republican
party.”
Besides the obvious political ramifications, there are many, many reasons for conservatives to oppose
the immigration reform bill. It will legalize the millions of undocumented aliens first before any
consideration of border security. In an interview last Sunday on Univision, the Spanish language TV
network, Rubio said “First comes the legalization, then come the measures to secure the border, and
then comes the process of permanent residence. What we're talking about here is the system of permanent
residence. Regarding the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has
to happen and that it has to happen at the same time we begin the measures regarding [border]
security. It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional.”
Open borders is unpopular, especially in border towns
D’Ottavio, the Examiner, 9
[Kari, 1-4-9, The Examiner, “Open Borders Are Dangerous”, http://www.examiner.com/article/openborders-are-dangerous, accessed 7-10-13, HG]
Illegal immigration into the United States is massive in scale. More than 10 million undocumented
aliens, which is a conservative estimate, currently reside in the U.S., and that population grows
every year. It is a sign of how dangerous our borders are.
Many illegal aliens come to America primarily for better jobs; however, they also weaken the legal and
national security environment. When 3 out of every 100 people in America are undocumented, or
documented with forged and faked papers, there is a serious security problem. The presence of
millions of undocumented migrants distorts the law, consumes resources, and effectively creates a cover
for terrorists and criminals.
Where does Barack Obama stand on the border fence? Obama voted for the fence but since that
time has joined Clinton in de-emphasizing his support, which is unpopular in border towns.
Opening the border is unpopular- cartels and low wages
Zieve, Political Commentator, 7
[Sher, 6-21-7, Renew America, “Military warns personnel don't go to Mexico while Senate pushes open
borders,” http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/070621, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
While President Bush and US Senators continue to fiddle with their open borders amnesty policy, also
known as the "Immigration Reform" bill, the US military is warning its personnel and civilian
employees not to enter Mexican border towns. Chillingly, this warning also includes US towns located
along our southern border. Towns on the Mexican side of the border, and perhaps those on the US
side as well, are increasingly being controlled by Mexican drug lords and their cartels. These same
drug lords have placed death-bounties on both our US border patrol agents and US military
personnel. Unconscionably, our leftist mainstream media is neither reporting this nor the facts that open
warfare is occurring, on a daily basis, along large portions of the US-Mexico border. Mexican illegals
are, on a regular basis, burning down portions of the ecologically-sensitive Coronado National
Forest to create diversions; so that drug dealers and other illegals can cross unfettered into the United
States. Where is the outrage from the supposed environmentalists? It's nonexistent. Are the arsonists
accepted because they're assumed to be from the politically-correct race — no matter what they do?
Apparently so.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 183
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Note: Despite the arson and increasing warfare at our southern border, our politicians are still
working to bypass the American people and pass their Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. What are they
thinking — or better yet, smoking?
With the exception of our elite political and business leaders, the Senate Amnesty Bill will — ultimately
— help no one. As illegal-turned-legal workers enter the US, in even greater numbers, wages for US
citizens will be driven down, members of the US middle class will become fewer and fewer and a
new and permanent lower-class structure will have been firmly established upon our shores. Can
the Patron-peon scenario be far behind?
After our Congress and President have imbued the current illegals in our country with legal status, said
illegals-now-legal will demand somewhat higher wages. Business will then need even more
impoverished workers to fill the lower-lower class worker pool. So, illegal entry will continue —
aided and abetted by our politicians. It is a never ending cycle of the intentional planned
destruction of the United States of America — by those who are sworn to protect it — for the promises
of power and larger bank accounts; or additional holdings in the Caymans. Power and money corrupt and
there are always those in line begging to be corrupted. We now hear them on and in the media virtually
every day. The current Amnesty Bill also calls for the construction of 370 miles of border fence. HUH???
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed and funded by Congress, already provides for the
building of 700 miles of security fencing along our southern border! Congress is — yet again —
ignoring a law that is currently in place in order to attempt to pass a more feckless one. The Senate
is simply trying to force their Amnesty Bill upon the American people by trying to convince them
that without it there will be no security fence built.
Opening the border is unpopular- fear of spillover violence
Associated Press, 11
[12-11-11, Fox News, “U.S. Proposes Unmanned Border Entry With Mexico,”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/us-proposes-unmanned-border-entry-with-mexico/,
accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, Texas – The bloody drug war in Mexico shows no sign of relenting.
Neither do calls for tighter border security amid rising fears of spillover violence.
This hardly seems a time the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from
Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But in this rugged, remote West Texas terrain where wading
across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy, federal authorities are touting a proposal to
open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.
By the spring, kiosks could open up in Big Bend National Park allowing people from the tiny Mexican
town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another
location, at least 100 miles away.
The crossing, which would be the nation's first such port of entry with Mexico, has sparked opposition
from some who see it as counterintuitive in these days of heightened border security. Supporters say
the crossing would give the isolated Mexican town long-awaited access to U.S. commerce, improve
conservation efforts and be an unlikely target for criminal operations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 184
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Internal Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 185
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 186
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital Definition
Political capital is the combined resources available to the president to influence
lawmakers
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 489, footnote 2, Wiley, accessed:
7/8/13, ML]
(2.) To elaborate, we conceptualize "political capital" as selective-incentives presidents control and
may allocate to induce changes in lawmakers' votes. So, even as tactical applications may vary for
example, arm-twisting, brow-beating, horse-trading, etc.--all reflect the same underlying purpose:
allocating the presidency's unique reservoir of persuasive resources bargaining with particular
lawmakers.
Political capital involves being cooperative and rewarding
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco]
In the following we employ the omnibus concept of ‘presidential political capital’ to¶ capture this
conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining.¶ 1¶ Specifi-¶ cally, we define presidents’
political capital as the class of tactics White House officials¶ employ to induce changes in
lawmakers’ behavior.¶ 2¶ Importantly, this conception of presi-¶ dents’ positive power as persuasive
bargaining not only meshes with previous scholarship¶ on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and
Wright (1994), Groseclose and Snyder (1996),¶ Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but also
presidential practice.¶ 3¶ For exam-¶ ple, Goodwin recounts how President Lyndon Johnson routinely
allocated ‘rewards’ to ‘cooperative’ members :¶ The rewards themselves (and the withholding of
rewards)¶ ...¶ might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a
walk around the White House¶ grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown
newspapers¶ ...¶ [or¶ something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases, educational research
grants,¶ poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the granting of pardons,¶ and
more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 187
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital Key to Agenda
Policymaking requires horse trading – President must use political capital to secure
agenda
Ryan, Political scientist & University of the West Indies University Director of the
Institute of Social and Economic Studies, 9
(Selwyn, 1-18-9, Trinidad Express, "Obama and political capital," Trinidad Express,
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968, accessed 7-15-10)
One of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all
system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when
the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate,
bargain and engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only
use moral or political suasion and promises of future support for policies or projects. The system
was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing majorities from conspiring to tyrannise
minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and plural, but socially and geographically so.
As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in
America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes
and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to
fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party
discipline which translated, means you do what I the leader say you do.
Political capital determines success of the President’s agenda
Light, Brookings Center for Public Service founding director, 99
(Paul Charles, New York University Professor of Public Service, The President’s Agenda: Domestic
Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, p. 25-26, Google Books,
http://books.google.com/books?id=vuWJHWdgstsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Presidents+Agenda&
hl=en&ei=X2FATOLRFIWKlwflvLHxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ
6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Presidents%20Agenda&f=false, accessed 7-15-10)
In chapter 2, I will consider just how capital affects the basic parameters of the domestic agenda. Though
the internal resources are important contributors to timing and size, capital remains the cirtical factor.
That conclusion will become essential in understanding the domestic agenda. Whatever the President’s
personal expertise, character, or skills, capital is the most important resource. In the past,
presidential scholars have focused on individual factors in discussing White House decisions, personality
being the dominant factor. Yet, given low levels in presidential capital, even the most positive and
most active executive could make little impact. A president can be skilled, charming, charismatic, a
veritable legislative wizard, but if he does not have the basic congressional strength, his domestic
agenda will be severely restricted – capital affects both the number and the content of the
President’s priorities. Thus, it is capital that determines whether the President will have the opportunity
to offer a detailed domestic program, whether he will be restricted to a series of limited initiatives and
vetoes. Capital sets the basic parameters of the agenda, determining the size of the agenda and
guiding the criteria for choice. Regardless of the President’s personality, capital is the central force
behind the domestic agenda.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 188
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political support key to agenda – collapse of support crushes agenda
Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute fellow and political analyst, 3
(Norman J., Roll Call, 9-10-3, “As Issues Pile Up; Bush Needs New Approach With Hill”, Lexis)
When a president operates with sky-high approval and a reputation as a winner no matter what the odds,
he has immense leverage with Members of Congress who fear his wrath and assume he will prevail.
When he stumbles, the assumptions change, and the ability to exercise power attenuates.
Policymaking requires compromise
Barrett & Eshbaugh-Soha, University of North Texas, 7
[Andrew W. & Matthew, March, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, “Presidential Success on
the Substance of Legislation”, pp. 100-112, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4623810, Accessed:
7-15-10)
Congress as an institution depends upon the willingness of its members to compromise to produce
legislation (Elving 1995). The lawmaking process is protracted and complicated with dozens of
opportuni- ties for unsatisfied legislators to kill legislation, including simple inaction by committee chairs
or party leaders. With more than five hundred individu- als divided into two legislative bodies, little can
be accomplished without building majority coalitions through bargaining and compromise.
Presidents, however, are only one among several cues that legislators use to decide how to vote (Kingdon
1981), with much coalition building taking place independent of presidential involvement (Arnold 1990).
Moreover, presidents must overcome several obstacles unique to their office when attempting to build
congressional coalitions (Edwards 2000). These include, but are not limited to, the president's limited
tenure in office as well as a different electoral clock and constituency than members of Congress. Each of
these provides different incentives for presi- dents and legislators to bargain, compromise, and
ultimately agree on legislative language. The hierarchical nature of the executive, in contrast to the
more decentralized legislature, also exacerbates presidential responsibility and accountability while
obscuring that of Congress. Given the difficulty of the lawmaking process itself and the unique
obstacles facing the president in building congressional coalitions, presidents will likely be forced to
make concessions on most bills they support, as they bargain with legisla- tors to secure their
passage. Therefore, we hypothesize that presidents will need to compromise on the substance of
legislation before they sign most bills into law.
The President has a limited capability to pass his agenda. Passing items like the plan
take away from his ability to pass other legislation
Feehery, former House Speaker Hastert staffer and Feehery Group president, 9
(John, Feehery Group is a Washington-based advocacy firm, 7-21-9, CNN, “Commentary: Obama enters
'The Matrix'” www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/index.html, accessed 7-16-10)
And, indeed, the Congress has its own rules that make quick legislative action, no matter
how popular with the American people, hard to achieve. The Obama agenda is
breathtaking in its scope and eye-popping in its cost. He seeks to completely recast the health
care, energy, financial services and automobile sectors of this country, as he seeks to make the
tax code more progressive, retirement programs more sustainable, and the immigration system
more welcoming to immigrants. And he also wants to stimulate the economy and get us out of
what some people are calling the "Great Recession." But can it all get done, and in a form that
makes his political base happy? The president insists that he can get this all done, and his
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 189
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has implied that the financial crisis has actually given the White
House more momentum to get it all done. But history tells a different story. Congress has its
own code, and cracking that code usually means taking into account five different factors. These
five factors are: Money: It may seem trite, but the biggest factor in determining the size and
scope of a legislative agenda is how much money -- and more importantly, the perception of how
much money -- is available for the government to use. Bill Clinton's legislative agenda was
necessarily limited because his budget constraints made it difficult to spend money on big things.
George Bush, who inherited a fairly large budget surplus, had money to burn, which allowed him
to pass a prescription drug benefit. President Obama has no money, which means that if he wants
to pass a big new entitlement like a health care public option, he will have to make the Congress
take the painful step of raising a lot of taxes. Time: The legislative calendar is simply not that
long. A new administration has a little less than a year to pass its big-ticket items, mostly
because it is very hard to get major initiatives done in an election year. Take away the three
months it takes to hire key staff, a couple of months for the various congressional recesses, and
you have about six months to really legislate. Since Congress is supposed to use some time to
pass its annual spending bills (there are 12 that need to be passed each year, not counting
supplemental spending bills), time for big initiatives is actually very limited. Each day the
president takes time to travel overseas or to throw out the first pitch at an All Star game, he is
taking time away from making contacts with legislators whose support is crucial for the
president's agenda. Time is not a limitless resource on Capitol Hill. Political capital: A
president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a war or
some other calamity that brings the country together), which is why most presidents try to pass
as much as possible as early as possible in their administrations. The most famous example
of that was Franklin Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald
Reagan moved his agenda very early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax
proposals and the No Child Left Behind law very early in his White House. They understood
the principle that it is important to strike while the iron is hot. President Bush famously
misunderstood this principle when he said that he was going to use the "political capital" gained
in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he failed to understand was that as soon as
he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and he had no political
capital. President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But
each day he is in office, his political capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the
well to pass things like "cap and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more
important priorities like health care. Focus: Congress can walk and chew gum at the same
time. But focus is essential to achieving results. Presidential focus quite often moves off the
domestic agenda and into the wider world of diplomacy. But that can spell greater political
danger for a president and his party. George H.W. Bush spent most of his presidency
winning a war against Iraq and successfully concluded the Cold War conflict with the
Soviet Union. But neither of those foreign policy successes helped him win re-election. His
son, George W. Bush, understood that he had to keep a tight focus on the economy and one big
domestic policy item (education), and while the war on terror did end up dominating his
presidency, Bush never forgot to focus on his domestic achievements. The biggest danger to
President Obama is not just foreign entanglements, it is also competing domestic priorities that
threaten to undermine his ability to get big things done. For example, the House vote on cap and
trade has made it very hard for conservative and moderate Democrats to join with Speaker
Nancy Pelosi on a more important health care bill.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 190
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Presidential negotiating key to agenda
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 28-29, ProQuest, AMS]
The Politics of Economics
Political organizations that represent established economic interests capitalize on contentious public
beliefs and the dispersal of government power. They wield resources and ongoing relationships of
advantage sharing and threats of political retribution to guide and, if necessary, pressure members
of Congress and administration officials to redirect, delay, or reject policies that threaten their
interests.
Ronald Reagan's wide-ranging efforts to shrink federal government responsibilities and funding was
subsequently checked or reduced as organized interests effectively used judicial oversight and
congressional alliances (Bickers and Stein 1995). Seeking change from the opposite ideological direction,
Obama faced formidable opposition to programs that would primarily benefit a large, diffuse, and
comparatively unorganized target population - namely, recipients of health care expansion.
Anticipating deadlock and potential defeat, he and his allies adapted to this imbalanced
organizational combat zone by striking compromises with stakeholders in the financial and health
care industries (Jacobs and King 2009, 2010).
Although strong public support can augment the White House's bargaining position, strategic
presidents enhance their probability of success by adjusting their positions, giving some ground to
legislators and well-organized interests with the sway to obstruct them (Burnam 2010; Dickinson
2008). In 2009-10, President Obama and his allies adjusted their policy positions on health care
reform, balancing their commitment to comprehensive reform against the strategic need to secure
support or acquiescence of powerful economic interests and their allies (Jacobs and Skocpol 2012).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 191
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Theory Flawed
Political capital is finite and the theory is true
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 491-2, Wiley, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
Returning to our model and its implications, we see a prerequisite to presidential influence is the
president's willingness and ability to spend political capital lobbying lawmakers. When a president
either chooses not to get involved (A = 0) or lacks political capital to spend (B = 0), the pivotal senator
will propose and pass her preferred bill. In such circumstances, the chamber's preference distribution
does not matter; the president will have no influence.
In other circumstances--ones commonplace since Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the Oval Office--the
president not only seeks to exert influence on Capitol Hill, but also wields some political capital to
invest to that end. We now turn to these cases and in doing so uncover how presidents' influence turns
on more than his supply of political capital and the location of the pivotal voter; it also depends on the
level ideological polarization. Let us explain.
Political capital increases lobbying power and the odds for passage – studies prove
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 492, Wiley, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
Below we illustrate this general finding for three archetype distributions--one unimodal, one uniform, and
one bimodal--as shown in Figure 2 and defined in Appendix A. Note that, although these three archetype
distributions vary substantially in terms of polarization, from low (unimodal) to moderate (uniform) to
high (bimodal), they all have the same median voter, which allows us to isolate the impact of ideological
polarization per se, independent of the pivotal voter's preference. Put differently, comparing presidents'
influence across these three distributions reveals how polarization (or lack thereof) affects
presidents' legislative influence (or lack thereof), all else equal.
Figure 3 displays the president's influence on the policy outcome given these different levels of
congressional polarization, assuming the president's goal is to achieve an outcome as far to the right
as possible (toward 1/2). Perhaps the most obvious result is that presidents endowed with political
capital and executing a vote-centered strategy can always improve their prospects for success by
lobbying. Across all three distributions, even modest supplies of political capital permit the
president to pull the outcome toward his preferred outcome. And, of course, added supplies of
political capital only serve to further enhance presidents' policy-making influence.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 192
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political capital theory true – leverage is used to curb public support in favor of the
President, and to assert policies
Ponder, Drury University’s Political Science Professor, 12
(Daniel E., June 2012, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Presidential Leverage and the Politics of Policy
Formulation,” 42, no. 2, p. 304-5, YGS)
Presidents can use leverage strategically so as to maximize their power potential.
The notion of the president’s public standing to attitudes toward government as a whole
derives in part from Stephen Skowronek’s observation that “Presidents stand preeminent
in American politics when government has been most thoroughly discredited, and when
political resistance to presidency is weakest, presidents tend to remake the government
wholesale” (1993, 37). Indeed, at one level, presidential leverage can be conceived of as
having a familial resemblance to Skowronek’s “warrant” for power, by which he means a
kind of license or authority to put political power into action (1993, esp. chaps. 2 and 3).
Skowronek argues that these warrants are contingent on the political time in which
presidents’ serve. Leverage is similar in that it systematically measures or quantifies this
contingency and identifies when a president truly does “stand preeminent” in American
politics. This state of affairs obtains when leverage is high. When government action (or
inaction) has left the public wanting, distrustful, and/or skeptical of political action,
presidents may enjoy leverage over competing institutions and thus feel emboldened to increase the
variety of their public policy proposals, perhaps realizing increased policy
success in the legislative arena. Presidential leverage conveys how presidents (via the
imperfect measure of presidential approval) fare in the presence of public attitudes in the
other institutions of government, with specific reference to trust in government. When
the public lacks trust in other institutions and the president is able to rise above those
institutions, he builds distance between himself and the beleaguered institutions of
government; on the downside, he may sense he has more of a warrant for action than is
actually the case (see Schlesinger 1973; Skowronek 1993).9
Similar too is Charles O. Jones’s consideration of “leeway.” Jones sees leeway as
“essentially an exercise in capitalizing on the conspicuous features of separationism
. . . encouraged in post-World War II politics by the frequency of split party government”
(2000, 6). Leeway is similar to Skowronek’s warrants in that they both imply that
presidents can use structural and institutional contexts to forge their own paths, perhaps
working outside the boundaries of what might be acceptable or predictable.
Leverage focuses on the public dimension of presidential action, and presidents
with considerable leverage can further veer “off course” and take advantage of the
“feeling,” however temporary, that they are “first among equals” with the leverage to set
the course of American politics.10 Leverage, broadly conceived, derives from and builds
upon these insights into presidential authority. I conceive it not as antagonistic to
“warrants” or “leeway,” but rather as part of a cumulative process that helps explain
presidential action where presidents can assert, however intuitively, leverage over the
course of American politics and public policy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 193
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – PC Theory Flawed [Hirsh version]
They say political capital theory flawed – group
1. Theory is true- president only has a certain amount of tangible and intangible
resources at his disposal. If one bill is unpopular, then the president has to use
both kinds of his resources to get the bill through Congress.
2. Hirsh says the critical flaw in political capital theory is that it is easily
overestimated – not relevant in the context of fiat. The plan passes regardless
and doesn’t affect Obama’s decision to push or not push the agenda item.
Doesn’t matter how much political capitalObama perceives he has, only
matters how much is necessary to pass the agenda item. Hirsh does conclude
that momentum and mandate power can help the President pass bills.
3. Hirsh assumes political capital must be quantifiable to be spent. Other
qualitative factors of political capital like mandate rhetoric have empirically
been successful in increasing presidential influence: Eisenhower and Reagan
prove.
4. Political capital is meaningful to legislation – Hirsh accepts political capital
theory—he uses it to qualify the support a president can expect
Hirsh, National Journal Chief Correspondent, 13
[Michael, Updated: May 30, 2013 | 12:26 a.m., February 7, 2013 | 8:10 p.m., “There’s No Such Thing as
Political Capital”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207, accessed 7-10-13, AFB]
The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate”
or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected
has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he
was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many
pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but
meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really
look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that
matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 194
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
5. Obama gets the blame for all legislation – he signs it and puts it into action –
that means he only has a finite amount of capital that he can spend pushing
legislation – people won’t cooperate over controversial issues when the
president is unpopular
6. Hirsh assumes that legislators are cemented in their views if they look at
something in isolation- that’s false. There is a large contingent that can be
persuaded if Obama influential enough on the Hill. This is proven by
Republican Senators who have crossed party lines, like Susan Collins from
Maine, or Mark Kirk from Illinois
7. He also cites LBJ, Bush, Obama, Lincoln, and FDR as examples but all of
them prove that political capital theory is true- all of them used time and
resources and their credibility to try to persuade members of Congress and
the public on controversial issues and had a limited amount of it to spend. All
of these presidents had successes and failures due to political capital or the
lack of political capital.
8. The atmosphere can’t change that much in a few weeks like Hirsh says – if
the president has to lobby and irritates key politicians, nothing would change
so drastically in a few weeks – It would take years
9. Polarization means PC works – ideology has never been the sole reason
Obama has been unable to pass legislation – Obama can use PC on the pivotal
voters who care about the substance of the bill to get it passed – empirically
true.
10. There is no alternative – even their authors concede that passivity is worse
than persuasion because it is perceived as weak. That means persuasion is the
best way of pushing legislation.
11. He’s wrong – Republicans can’t win the Latino Vote – means no compromise
and no momentum
Tomasky, Daily Beast special correspondent, 6/28/13 [Michael, Daily Beast, “Get Ready for
More GOP Race Baiting”, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/28/get-ready-for-more-goprace-baiting.html, accessed: 7/9/13, ML]
The situation is this. The immigration reform bill passed the Senate yesterday. It will now go to the
House. A few weeks ago, as I read things, there were occasional and tepid signals that the House would
not take up the Senate bill. Now, by contrast, those signals are frequent and full-throated. For
example, yesterday Peter Roskam, a deputy GOP whip in the House, said this: “It is a pipe dream to
think that [the Senate] bill is going to go to the floor and be voted on. The House is going to move
through in a more deliberative process.”
“Deliberative process” probably means, in this case, killing the legislation. House conservatives, National
Journal reports, are increasingly bullish on the idea that they may be able to persuade John
Boehner to drop the whole thing.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 195
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Sean Trende, the conservative movement’s heavily asterisked answer to Nate Silver (that is to say, Silver
got everything right, and Trende got everything wrong), came out with an analysis this week, headlined
“Does GOP Have to Pass Immigration Reform?,” showing that by golly no, it doesn’t. You can jump over
there yourself and study all his charts and graphs, but the long and short of it is something like this. Black
turnout and Democratic support have both been unusually high in the last two elections, which is
true; Democrats have been steadily losing white voters, which is also true; if you move black turnout
back down to 2004-ish levels and bump up GOP margins among whites (by what strikes me as a wildly
optimistic amount), you reach White Valhalla. Somehow or another, under Trende’s “racial polarization
scenario,” it’ll be 2044 before the Democrats again capture 270 electoral votes. Thus is the heat of
Schlafly’s rhetoric cooled and given fresh substance via the dispassionate tools of statistics.
Karl Rove says this is bunk. He wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that to win the White House
without more Latino support, a Republican candidate would have to equal Ronald Reagan’s 1984
total among whites, which was 63 percent. Rove thinks this unlikely—Trende thinks it’s pessimistic—
and counsels some Latino reach-out (naturally, none of them ever says anything about black reach-out).
The party used to listen to Rove, but most of them have zoomed well past him to the twilight zone of the
far, far right.
These Republicans and the people they represent—that is, the sliver of people they care about
representing—don’t want any outreach. They almost certainly won’t let a path to citizenship get through
the House. And they’ll attack minorities in other ways, too. It’s been mostly civil rights advocates who’ve
denounced the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision, and one can obviously see why. But trust
me, that decision, as Bloomberg’s Josh Green shrewdly noted the day it came down, is a “poisoned
chalice” for the GOP.
Why? Just look at what’s already happened since the decision was announced—the party is launching
voter-suppression drives in six of the nine freshly liberated states. All the states, of course, are down
South. These drives might “work.” But they will attract an enormous amount of negative publicity,
and they’ll probably induce massive backlashes and counter-movements. This effort will lead to even
greater distrust of the GOP by people of color, and it will reinforce the captive Southern-ness of the
party, making it even more Southern than it already is. And Republicans won’t stop, because they can’t
stop. Race baiting is their crack pipe.
And here’s the worst part of this story. If the House Republicans kill immigration reform, and Republican
parties across the South double down to keep blacks from voting, then they really will need to jack up the
white vote—and especially the old white vote—in a huge way to be competitive in 2016 and beyond.
Well, they’re not going to do that by mailing out Lawrence Welk CDs. They’re going to run heavily
divisive and racialized campaigns , worse than we’ve ever seen out of Nixon or anyone. Their only
hope of victory will be to make a prophet of Trende—that is, reduce the Democrats’ share of the white
vote to something in the mid- to low-30 percent range. That probably can’t happen, but there’s only one
way it might. Run the most racially inflamed campaign imaginable.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 196
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Not Key
Best studies go neg – capital is key
Beckmann and McGann, UC Irvine political science professors, 8
(Matthew N. and Anthony J., Reader in Government at the University of Essex, Journal of Theoretical
Politics 20(2):201, DOI: 10.1177/0951629807085818, “Navigating the Legislative Divide: Polarization,
Presidents, and Policymaking in the United States,” http://jtp.sagepub.com)
Here we propose a theory that casts some early rays of light onto the policy consequences of polarization
in Congress. Building from a simple theoretical model in which the president seeks to promote his
preferred policies in the Senate (see Snyder, 1991; Groseclose, 1996), we assess differences in the
chamber’s preference distribution – from normal to unanimous to bimodal – as well as the ‘political
capital’ at the president’s disposal.2 Results show that absent the president, ideological polarization
makes amassing the votes needed to beat the status quo difficult, so gridlock frequently prevails. The
same is true when the president lacks political capital to spend. However, when endowed with
abundant capital , facing a polarized legislature enables presidents to pass policies closer to their
ideal than would have been possible in an assembly characterized by greater ideological
homogeneity. Hence the familiar prediction of blanket ‘gridlock’ is overblown . Instead,
comparative statics show that the consequences of ideological polarization in Congress are
conditional: they depend on the nature of the preference distribution, the involvement of the
president, and the political capi- tal at his disposal.
Political capital is real and effective – specifically this Congress
Roarty, National Journal politics writer, 2-21-13
[Alex, 2-21-13, The Atlantic, “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously,”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/theres-reason-to-be-optimistic-about-congressseriously/273393/, accessed 7-9-13, MSG]
Nevertheless, this is a new congressional session, and Boren's pessimism might possibly be proved
wrong. For the first time in a decade, if not longer, conditions are aligned for bipartisan deal-making,
raising hopes that Congress might actually do something and satisfy the wishes of millions of
Americans hungry for action. "I am pleased with the signs I see in Congress today to try to make
deals," said Lee Hamilton, who was a veteran Democratic House member from Indiana. "There are
threads of it -- it's not a fabric yet -- but there are threads, and that's encouraging."
In today's context, defining success is important -- and requires a healthy dose of both skepticism and
pragmatism. There's little hope that this Congress can reverse the -- exacerbated by, among other things,
powerful special interests and partisan media -- that has gripped Washington. The forces that drove Rep.
Boren out of Congress remain potent, and the legislative atmosphere on Capitol Hill is still toxic.
Instead of a long-term course correction, the question is whether Republican leaders in the House,
President Obama, and Senate Democrats can facilitate a reprieve -- if only to show the public that
the institution is still functional. Cutting a deal with the broad backing of both parties isn't a
question so much of relieving those pressures as of learning to pass laws in spite of them.
Favorable Conditions
The makeup of the 113th Congress and the occupant of the White House make conditions riper for
bipartisan legislation than at any time since President George W. Bush's first years in office. Since
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 197
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
then, Washington has been in the grip of one of two dynamics: Either one party has held Congress and the
presidency, or one party, possessing limited power, has had little interest in passing consequential
legislation.
The latter was the case last session, when Republicans controlled only the House. In most cases, they used
this chamber to approve legislation, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's eponymous budget, that helped define the
party's agenda but had no chance of gaining approval in the Senate (much less withstanding a veto from
the White House). They were trying to wait out a president whom they believed would be sent packing in
2013.
Democrats were in a similar position from 2007 to 2009, when they controlled Congress but wanted to
wait out Bush's tenure. The lack of bipartisanship, of course, didn't prevent major legislation from
becoming law over the past 10 years. But when Democrats controlled Washington and passed the
Affordable Care Act in 2010, or similarly empowered Republicans approved Medicare Part D in
2003, they didn't need the backing of the other party -- and by and large didn't get it.
This session is different. Neither party has unilateral control, and yet there is an appetite, in the first
year of Obama's second term, to make a serious attempt to legislate. The last time Capitol Hill saw
something similar came in 2001 and 2002. Republicans suddenly lost the Senate when Sen. Jim Jeffords
of Vermont defected from the GOP in the early summer, but Congress still overwhelmingly approved the
No Child Left Behind Act months later (although the first round of Bush's tax cuts passed with only a
dozen or so Democrats on board in each chamber). Later, the parties worked together to approve a slew of
national security issues after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But drawing comparisons to that period is difficult because of 9/11; and, besides, most of Bush's term
is hardly associated with bipartisan comity. The better parallel -- and the experience current optimists
point to -- is 1996 and 1997, which bridges the end of President Clinton's first term and the
beginning of his second. That two-year span saw agreements on a series of important issues, ranging
from two big-ticket items (welfare reform and a balanced-budget agreement) to lesser-known
achievements (such as raising the minimum wage).
The similarity between that period and now extends beyond the split control of government. Only a
year earlier, Republicans had ridden the "revolution" of 1994 into control of Congress, when they
promised to push their agenda whether Clinton approved or not. But the party ultimately dealt with
political setbacks, none more damaging than the government shutdown of 1996. The public blamed
Republicans, and afterward Clinton never again trailed GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole (who was
Senate majority leader at the time of the shutdown) in a head-to-head matchup, according to preelection
polls.
Boehner's Challenge
Public opinion might once again be pulling against Republicans, burnt as they were by Obama's
reelection and their unexpected losses in the Senate. In a January poll by The Wall Street Journal and
NBC News, 49 percent of adults disapproved of the GOP -- and only 26 percent approved. It was
the worst rating for Republicans since 2008. Just as the Republicans in Clinton's time decided their
political survival depended on coming to the table, the GOP of today might do the same.
"Republicans overplayed the government shutdown, and President Clinton won that battle," said Dan
Glickman, a former House member who was Clinton's Agriculture secretary. "And, with that, he
effectively used the bully pulpit to control the agenda. He gave a lot of cover for people to vote for him.
It's not the only factor, but members of Congress are much [more] likely to support a president when
the people at home are inclined to support the president."
How much Obama's broad popularity matters to most GOP House members is debatable. With many of
the president's supporters packed into heavily Democratic urban districts, most Republicans represent
safely red districts. (In November, Mitt Romney won 227 congressional districts, a majority, despite
losing by 4 percentage points in the national vote.)
But Obama's standing could weigh more heavily on House Speaker John Boehner and Majority
Leader Eric Cantor than on their followers; Cantor has recently attempted to rebrand the party
with a softer image. While their charges' interests are more parochial, they have the national party's
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 198
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
image to worry about. Popular opinion could prod the two leaders to reach agreements with
Obama, especially on emotional issues such as gun control and immigration. Or, at the very least,
public pressure could work to ease the disagreements that make even basic government action
difficult -- a factor that might have been at work when House Republicans engineered a threemonth delay of the debt ceiling. "They're hearing the message outside the Beltway that 'we elected you
people to make things work,'" said John Breaux, the former longtime Democratic senator from Louisiana.
The onus falls particularly hard on Boehner, whose struggles to control his conference are well
documented. More than any other player in Washington, he will determine whether anything gets done
this year. How he decides to proceed could rest on how frequently he's willing to leave conservative
colleagues out in the cold and, consequently, how far he's willing to risk his speakership.
The good of the party, and not his seat of power, propelled Boehner's decision to bring the
superstorm Sandy relief bill to a vote earlier this year, when it passed with just a minority of
support from Republicans. That combination -- Democrats and the moderate wing of the House
GOP -- is the pathway to enacting a sweeping set of bipartisan agreements.
A week after the storm vote, a large bipartisan majority passed a three-month extension of the debt
ceiling. "It is hard to see this Congress being viewed as a bipartisan one, but we have seen a glimmer of
light on the recent bipartisan vote to extend the debt ceiling," said Ron Bonjean, a onetime aide to
the Republican leadership.
Obama's Duty
Maintaining that momentum in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's personal
leadership. Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part on successful
cajoling from the president. And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top
leaders -- discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply pessimistic.
Political capital is specifically true in close cases - publicizing the issues and
polarization makes it work
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 498-9, Wiley, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
The final important piece in our theoretical model--presidents' political capital--also finds support in
these analyses, though the results here are less reliable. Presidents operating under the specter of
strong economy and high approval ratings get an important, albeit moderate, increase in their
chances for prevailing on "key" Senate roll-call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the
substantive implications of these results in the context of polarization, showing that going from the lower
third of political capital to the upper third increases presidents' chances for success by 8 percentage points
(in a setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide an important boost to presidents'
success on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough to overcome basic congressional realities.
Political capital is just strong enough to put a presidential thumb on the congressional scales, which
often will not matter, but can in close cases.
Lastly, two of the control variables are particularly noteworthy. The first is the president's public
declaration of his preferred outcome (b = .64, se = .26, p < .05), which shows that presidents fare far
better on publicized positions--24 points better, holding all else at its 2008 values. While this
relationship may partly be causal, it is more likely reflects the fact that presidents tend to publicize
popular policies (see Canes-Wrone 2005) and also that public statements are symptomatic of a
broader lobbying campaign (see Beckmann 2010). The other significant control variable is the one
accounting for nonideological polarization changes occurring in Washington over the last 50 years (a
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 199
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
secular trend captured by the natural log of the number of Congresses since the 83rd). Results for this
variable show more recent senators have been more willing to defeat the president on key, contested
roll-call votes, all else equal (b = -0.42, se = 0.13, p < .05). To the extent senators' ideological
polarization has intertwined with the postwar Washington's more politicized environment, it has muted
presidents' ability to exploit centrist senators' increased isolation.
All told, the multiple regression results corroborate the basic model and its principal hypothesis:
ideological polarization around that pivotal voter's position provides presidents with a better
opportunity to win key roll-call votes. This is especially true if the president is backed by high public
approval and buoyed by a strong economy. By contrast, a president confronting a far-off pivotal voter
surrounded by like-minded colleagues has few options for achieving legislative success, regardless of his
political potency.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 200
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Not Key – Ideology and/or Little Effect
[Dickinson, Beckmann & Kumar]
Political capital key – polarization allows political capital to be concentrated –
increases chances of passage
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 488-9, Wiley, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
That Congress has experienced increased polarization is clear, and burgeoning is the
literature investigating its causes and consequences. Here we examine a counterintuitive
wrinkle on the latter. Drawing from a simple game-theoretic model in which a president
strategically allocates scarce “political capital” to induce changes in legislators’ votes, we
show congressional polarization can actually improve a president’s prospects for
winning key roll-call votes—a hypothesis that emerges inasmuch as polarization enables
presidents to concentrate their resources lobbying fewer members (compared to a more
homogenous chamber). We test this hypothesis by investigating presidents’ success on
Congressional Quarterly’s “key” Senate roll-call votes, 1953-2008.
That the last half-century has seen increased polarization in Washington is clear.
Holders of most key posts and key votes just a few decades back, conservative
Democrats and liberal Republicans are now few and far between, so much so that one
scribe recently referred to the former as “endangered species” and the latter as “essentially
extinct” (Roll Call, October 27, 2005). Replacing these moderates have been resolute
ideologues and loyal partisans (Fleisher and Bond 2004; McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal
2006; Poole and Rosenthal 1984; 1997; Sinclair 2006; Theriault 2008). Plainly, Jim
Hightower’s aphorism that “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes
and dead armadillos” remains instructive, and more so with each passing year.
In light of Congress’s increasingly polarized character, a burgeoning literature has
sought to uncover the causes and consequences. While a myriad of factors have been
identified as contributing to congressional polarization (Brady and Han 2007; Carson et al.
2007; Fleisher and Bond 2004; Jacobson 2000; Ladewig 2010; McCarty, Poole, and
Rosenthal 2006; Poole and Rosenthal 1997; Sinclair 2006; Stonecash, Brewer, and Mariani
2003; Theriault 2008), the hypothesized effect is comparatively clear: legislative gridlock.
Partisan polarization (via divided government) is thought to engender gridlock by
promoting posturing over compromising (Gilmour 1995; Groseclose and McCarty 2001;
Lee 2009; Sinclair 2006), and ideological polarization is predicted to encourage gridlock
by reducing the range of status quos that can be beat by a coalition preferring something else
(Brady and Volden 1998; Krehbiel 1998).
But, of course, gridlock is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Although polarization
certainly inhibits lawmaking (Barrett et al. 1997; Binder 1999, 2003; Coleman 1999;
Howell et al. 2000; Jones 2001; Kelly 1993), significant laws continue to pass—
underunified and divided government, and even in the face of substantial polarization (see
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 201
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
esp. Mayhew 2005). This article considers these exceptions to the general rule.
Specifically, building on Snyder (1991) (see also, Beckmann and McGann 2008; Groseclose
and Snyder 1996) we develop a simple game-theoretic model in which the president
allocates scarce political capital to induce changes in senators’ votes and, in turn, show
how a polarized chamber, compared to one with more homogenous preferences, can actually
improve a president’s prospects for winning important roll-call votes and passing
preferred legislation. We test this hypothesis against data on presidents’ success on key
Senate roll-call votes from 1953 to 2008.1
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 202
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political capital allows the president to appear more bipartisan, increasing
Congressional influence – bypasses ideologies
Villalabos et al., University of Texas at El Paso Political Science Assistant Professor,
12
[José D., Justin S. Vaughn, Boise State University Assistant Professor of Political Science, Julia R. Arazi,
Marquette University Assistant Professor of Political Science, September 2012, “Politics or Policy? How
Rhetoric Matters to Presidential Leadership of Congress,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 3, Center
for the Study of the Presidency, p. 554-5, Proquest, accessed 7-8-13, UR]
The second category of presidential messages moves away from the electoral logic of mandate rhetoric
and toward the normative ethos of bipartisanship. In this category, rather than grounding an argument in a
perceived mandate, the president makes the case for his policy proposal by highlighting efforts for
having (or having had) the two major parties (and, thus, the two elected institutions) come together
over common bonds— despite their political differences—to work on behalf of the public good. The
logic here is quite different, as presidential messages of bipartisanship frequently contain within
them not implicit threats but explicit pleas as well as references to evidence of bipartisan partnership.
Furthermore, with these appeals for unity comes an incentive for congres- sional support: shared
credit. The president who “goes bipartisan” is also the president who invites members from the other
side of the aisle to Rose Garden bill-signing ceremonies and compliments rather than rebukes partisan
opponents during subsequent State of the Union reflections.
A president who complements his policy proposal messages with bipartisan rheto- ric is not, however,
necessarily a benevolent, nonstrategic actor. As Coleman and Manna (2007, 401) note, “arguably
weakening partisan loyalties in the public and an electoral base somewhat independent of fellow
partisans in Congress provide presidents with incentives to portray themselves in their
communications as above the political fray and virtually above or outside the system of partisanship
and elections altogether.” Indeed, in their study of presidential partisan rhetoric, Coleman and Manna find
that the relative degree of partisanship (or bipartisanship) in a presidential speech is driven by strategy,
with the strength of a presidential embrace or snub of partisanship determined by the president’s political
situation.6
This conclusion squares with case study work done by Neustadt (1960) and Bonds (2002), whose
analyses of Harry Truman’s attempt to sell the Marshall Plan to Congress presents a bipartisan strategy
rooted not in normative considerations, but rather in political pragmatism, in this case due to the political
weaknesses of Truman’s successor presidency.7 Indeed, as Neustadt (1960, 54) contends, “The plain fact
is that Truman had to play bipartisanship as he did or lose the game.” Similarly, in an article that argues
“bipartisanship is every bit as political as partisanship,” Trubowitz and Mellow (2005, 433) add that
bipartisan rhetoric is also motivated by a president’s strategic desire to court swing voters while
demonstrating political independence.8 Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H2: As presidential appeals bipartisanship increase, Presidential success in Congress will increase.
Polarization increases political capital’s effectiveness – 50 years of data prove
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N., & Vimal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 488-503, September 2011, “Opportunism in
Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008”, p. 492-4, Wiley, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
But beyond these basic results is the more intriguing insight: as polarization grows, increasing are the
president's policy returns on lobbying investments. By allowing the president to focus his political
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 203
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
resources on only a handful of swing voters, polarization permits presidents to exert greater influence
than would be possible in a chamber packed with so-called centrists. Consequently, given some level of
political capital, the president exerts the least influence in the nonpolarized (unimodal) legislature and
the greatest influence in the polarized (bimodal) one.4 Again, this illustration just affirms the general
result proved earlier: all else equal, ideological polarization around the pivotal voter improves
presidents' prospects for exerting influence, prevailing on key votes, and securing legislative success.
Ideology not definitively key – political capital works and policy preference varies
for each person
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Obviously, this basic model depicts a more or less non-partisan policymaking pro-¶ cess. This is
because pivotal voters choose which way to vote based on their policy pref erences (rather than
their party affiliations) and because neither presidents nor opposing¶ leaders can be restricted, by
rule, from proposing alternatives. We think this non-partisan¶ approach is instructive for at least
two reasons. First, it is unclear whether, or at least¶ to what extent, cartel theory applies in the Senate.
Second, even in the House, Cox and¶ McCubbins (2005) have shown that the foremost limitation to the
majority party’s negative agenda control comes when the president proposes and promotes his
initiatives.¶ As such, we believe our non-partisan model of presidential coalition building affords¶
insights to both partisan (e.g. Cox and McCubbins (1993, 2005)) and non-partisan (e.g.¶ Brady and
Volden (1998) and Krehbiel (1998)) models of US lawmaking. It helps spec-ify the mechanisms by
which presidents augment the majority party’s negative agenda¶ control during unified
government and occasionally ‘roll’ it during divided government.
Polarization is what political capital more effective – allows Obama to concentrate
his resources
Beckmann and McGann, UC Irvine political science professors, 8
(Matthew N. and Anthony J., Reader in Government at the University of Essex, Journal of Theoretical
Politics 20(2):201, DOI: 10.1177/0951629807085818, “Navigating the Legislative Divide: Polarization,
Presidents, and Policymaking in the United States,” http://jtp.sagepub.com)
We can generalize these findings to the case where the president needs to target more than one vote, as
would be the case in this example if a super-majority was required. If the president needs n votes to pass
measure o1 and C(o, si Þ is linear, then he will need to pay 2n times the cost of a median senator. In this
case it is not clear that it is cheaper for the president to get his measure passed in the polarized case; it
depends on the number of votes he has to buy. In the polarized case each vote is relatively expensive, so if
the president has to buy many votes, it may be more expensive than in a more homogenous case.
Polarization’s advantage to the president, after all, was that it allowed him to concentrate his
resources on the few senators who will have a very significant effect. Therefore, polarization
generally works to the president’s advantage pro- vided the president is in a situation where
winning over a few voters can signifi- cantly change the outcome (i.e. the polarization is distributed
around the pivotal voter). If many members are clustered at the pivot point, any additional
polariza- tion will limit presidential influence, produce policy stalemate, and reinforce legislative
gridlock. Discussion By all indications, the partisan and ideological polarization that has come to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 204
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
characterize officials in Washington shows no signs of abating. If anything, it appears that the schism
between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, will only continue to grow. The simple
but important question that many have asked is, so what? How does polarization affect the policymaking
process and the outcomes that result? While Mayhew’s initial study proved important laws continue to
prevail even in the face of divided government and polarization, subsequent research has indicated that
partisan and ideological polarization does encourage legislative gridlock, which, in turn, privileges the
status quo. This happens partly by germinating partisanship and posturing over negotiation and
compromise, and partly by leaving ideologically distant pivotal voters unable to find an alternative they
prefer even when they seek compromise and negotiate sincerely. By contrast, we theorize that
polarization’s impact on US lawmaking is conditional. Instead of hypothesizing gridlock
monotonically increases with polari- zation, our model predicts polarization’s policymaking impact
depends on three elements: the default preference of the pivotal voter, the extent of polarization
around the pivotal voter, and the president’s willingness (and ability) to spend his capital to win.
Depending on the particular constellation of these factors, predictions range from the familiar one
of gridlock on through to a president who not only avoids stalemate, but actually signs into law bills
that are closer to his preference than we would otherwise expect. Drawing from this model, then, a
more nuanced view of presidential influ- ence emerges. Assuming today’s White House officials are
eager to promote the president’s legislative agenda, we can now see when those efforts are likely to
pay off – namely, when the president enjoys ample political capital and confronts a polarized
legislature (i.e. one where there are few legislators sitting between the pivotal voter and some point
much closer to the president). Con- versely, when the president does not get involved or lacks
political capital when he does, all the conventional wisdom about pivotal voters and gridlock holds.
Also, any president promoting his agenda before a homogenous Senate (say, one characterized by a
normal distribution of preferences) is highly constrained by its predispositions. Therefore, as future
researchers revisit presidents’ potential influence in Congress, accounting for its conditional nature should
provide more discriminating results and permit more judicious inferences.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 205
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Not Key [Beckmann & Kumar]
The aff is misreading Beckmann and Kumar – they both conclude neg – here’s the
intro to prior to their article
Bond, Texas A&M political science professor and Fleisher, Fordham political
science professor, 11 [Jon and Richard, 9-1-11, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Editor’s
Introduction”, 3, Volume: 41, p. 437-8, HG]
Another recurring theme is the effect of party polarization on presidential congressional relations.
In "Opportunism in Polarization: Presidential Success in Senate Key Votes, 1953-2008," Matthew N.
Beckmann and Vimal Kumar incorporate party polarization into the analysis of political capital.
They challenge the conventional view that party polarization reduces the effectiveness of
presidential bargaining. Testing hypotheses from a parsimonious game-theoretic model, Beckman
and Kumar offer theoretical and empirical evidence that if parties in Congress are polarized, the
allocation of scarce "political capital" can actually improve a president's prospects for winning
roll-call votes. The key to understanding this counterintuitive result is that polarization enables presidents
to concentrate scarce resources lobbying fewer members.
Beckmann concludes negative – presidential influence is a key part of successful
legislation
Relyea, Congressional Research Service, 11
[Harold C., December 2011, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 19532004,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume: 41, pg. 844-845, Proquest, accessed 7-9-13, MSG]
Matthew Beckmann of the University of California at Irvine provides an interesting empirical analysis
of presidential leadership in lawmaking for the period from the Eisenhower through the Bush II
administrations. He notes that the key to a president's legislative leadership is strategy, not resolve
(p. 2), and concludes that the greatest source of influence for postwar presidents comes "in the
legislative early game, not the legislative endgame" (p. 2). Presidents who are strategically adept
work to get specific issues on the congressional calendar and, then, maneuver to insure that certain
proposals rise up as alternatives. Beckmann suggests that the best route for constructing winning
coalitions consists of "mobilizing leading allies, determining opponents, and circumventing
endgame floor fights altogether," rather than the typical path of gathering support from "centrist"
lawmakers (p. 2). In the end, he finds "that presidents' legislative influence is real, often substantial, and,
to date, greatly underestimated" (p. 3).
The author's assessment is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 consists of his introductory overview, as
briefly summarized above. Chapter 2 presents a theory of positive presidential power, focusing on the
Bush II administration's 2001 tax cut efforts in the Senate.
Here, Beckmann attributes the White House's success to its targeted strategy of lobbying and
bargaining with allies, key opponents, and swing voters. He cautions that although this is only one
example, it represents what a president's aides can achieve when they maximize lobbying
techniques for the purpose of advancing agenda-centered and vote-centered strategies (p. 104).
Reviewing the 195 3-2004 record of what he considers to be key votes for presidential legislative success
in Chapter 4, the author proposes a new method for evaluating the potential impact of presidents on
these votes. The two most significant elements are (1) personal involvement of the president and (2)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 206
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
the extent of his influence at the earliest stages in the legislative process, at the point of fashioning
legislation (p. 126). In Chapter 5 , after testing "whether presidents' influence held up even after
accounting for a myriad of rival explanations, including congressional composition, political context,
and issue specifics, as well as simple random chance" (p. 148), Beckmann asserts that the evidence
showed
presidents to be powerful, but not all powerful, players in federal policymaking. When the
president decides that some particular policy initiative deserves his administration's backing, it is a
great boon to the chances that a new law will supplant the old one. Yet also as predicted, this
potential is constrained by Congress' pivotal voters, limited by political environment, and variable
by issue. Furthermore, although the president's involvement greatly increases the likelihood that a
winning congressional coalition will be assembled, it is no guarantee. Indeed, the nature of
presidential leadership in lawmaking is that, while it generally helps win key votes and pass
preferred laws, it may not in any particular case. (p. 149)
In closing, the author observes that "integral to appraising any president's legacy is examining how
effectively he recognizes and capitalizes on his office's potential" but that equally as important as
any policy outcome is the value of healthy, substantive debate in Congress, as well as the related one
of pressuring members to clearly explain their positions on issues (p.l6l).
This is a useful and methodologically valuable contribution to the quantitative study of presidentialcongressional relations. It is a well-written and well-reasoned account, which likely will have classroom
value as a research model as well as for its contribution to the understanding of presidential leadership in
lawmaking.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 207
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Not Key at Beginning
Political capital is most valuable at the beginning stages of the bill
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
We agree. In fact, our model shows that presidents may intercede at an earlier point¶ in the
policymaking process by executing a second strategy: an agenda-centered strategy.¶ The essence of
this lobbying option is to get opposing leaders to cut a ‘deal’ with the¶ White House that is better than
the president could get from exclusively lobbying pivotal¶ voters. The core insight is that inasmuch as
concentrating the president’s lobbying on¶ leading opponents (rather than spreading it across an
interval of pivotal voters) induces¶ those leaders to pull their punches, that is, not offer a rival to the
president’s position or¶ at least something close to it, then this president-sponsored ‘deal’ need only be
viewed as¶ better than the status quo in the pivotal voter’s eyes (see Romer and Rosenthal (1978)).
Political capital key early on – Influencing behind-the-scenes early gets legislation
passed
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some researchers paint a more optimistic¶ picture
regarding presidents’ potential for passing important planks of their legislative¶ agenda. Covington et
al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and¶ Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light
(1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002)¶ all observe that presidents secure greater support for their
‘priority’ items, and when they¶ exert ‘effort’ pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that
White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind
the scenes , while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a
recalcitrant Congress by strategically ‘going public’ when advocating popular proposals (see also Kernell
(1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning¶ congressional coalitions by
changing members’ positions as a bill moves through the¶ legislative process.
However, even among these relative optimists, the prescription for presidents appears¶ to be an
ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy. In discussing¶ the challenge for a
president looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell¶ offers a comparable assessment. He
writes,
The number and variety of choices place great demands upon [presidents’] strategic calculation,¶ so much
so that pluralist leadership must be understood as an art...an ability to sense ‘right¶ choices’. (Kernell,
1993: 36)
Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical findings noted above, that is, a general (if mod-¶ est) pattern of
president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but¶ not on ‘key’ roll-call votes,
remain unexplained.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 208
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
This paper aims to demystify the White House’s legislative strategies, both their logic¶ and their effects.
Developing a non-cooperative game in which the president allocates scarce ‘political capital’ to
induce changes in legislators’ behavior, we deduce two lobby-ing strategies White House officials
may execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on¶ the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that
presidents’ foremost influence comesfrom bargaining with congressional leaders over policy
alternatives before bills reach the¶ floor, not bargaining with pivotal voters for their support once they do.
Precisely because¶ so much of the presidents’ influence comes in the legislative earlygame (rather than
the¶ endgame), we theorize that typical roll-call-based tests of presidents’ legislative influence¶ have
missed most of it.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 209
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital Finite
Political capital is finite and key to sway undecided pivotal voters
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Of course, presidential political capital is a scarce commodity with a floating value.¶ Even a favorably
situated president enjoys only a finite supply of political capital; he¶ can only promise or pressure so
much. What is more, this capital ebbs and flows as¶ realities and/or perceptions change. So, similarly to
Edwards (1989), we believe presidents’ bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’
predispositions, but¶ rather operate ‘at the margins’ of US lawmaking, however important those
margins may¶ be (see also Bond and Fleisher (1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994),¶ and
Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how¶ presidents may
systematically influence them.
Political capital works but diminishing returns makes it finite
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Figure 2 illustrates the president’s influence on the policy outcome from vote-centered¶ lobbying when the
president’s goal is to get an outcome as close to his ideal¶ p¶ (which we¶ assume equals one for illustrative
purposes). Several points are noteworthy, starting with¶ the simple one that if the president does not have
any political capital, he proposes the¶ pivotal/median voter’s predisposition, which passes.
By contrast, inasmuch as the president has capital and allocates it rationally to swing¶ voters, he can
now propose (and pass) bills closer to his ideal. This vote-centered lob-¶ bying influence, however,
yields decreasing policy returns for each additional unit of¶ political capital spent, a result that
emerges first because the president must induce more¶ and more pivotal voters to move as he gets
closer and closer to his ideal, and second,¶ because we model legislators as requiring increasing
amounts of political capital for each¶ move away from their ideal policy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 210
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – No Persuasion (Klein)
1. No internal link – the majority of Klein’s article is talking about big speeches
like Obama’s jobs speech and the State of the Union – our internal link is
political capital, not “going public”
2. Klein admits no alternative – passivity more dangerous
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
HG]
After three years in Washington, David Axelrod, who served as the chief strategist for President Obama’s
2008 campaign, agrees. “Some folks in politics believe this is all just a rhetorical game, but when you’re
governing it’s not,” he says. “People are viewing their lives through the lens of their own experience, not
waiting for you to describe to them what they’re seeing or feeling.” Paul Begala, who helped set the
message in the Clinton White House, puts it more piquantly: “The Titanic had an iceberg problem. It did
not have a communications problem. Right now, the President has a jobs problem. If Obama had fourper-cent unemployment, he would be on Mt. Rushmore already and people would look at Nancy Pelosi
like Lady Gaga.”
The question, Begala says, is: What is the alternative to Presidential persuasion? “If you don’t try it
at all, it guarantees you won’t persuade anybody,” he says. “And, to put it simply, your people in
Congress and in the country will hate you if you don’t.” That’s the real dilemma for the modern
White House. Aggressive, public leadership is typically ineffective and, during periods of divided
government, can actually make matters worse. But passivity is even more dangerous. In that case,
you’re not getting anything done and you look like you’re not even trying.
3. Klein’s argument is flawed – focused too narrowly in specific speeches, and
has no alt – Passivity on presidential agenda is worse—perceived as weakness
Drum, Mother Jones staff, 12
(Kevin, 3/12/12, Mother Jones, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit,” http://www.motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
Do presidents really have the power to persuade? Citing the work of political scientists George Edward
and Frances Lee, Ezra Klein writes in the New Yorker this week that they don't. Not much, anyway.
When presidents talk, he argues, all they really do is polarize: instead of persuading, they simply make
partisan divides even starker. So if you didn't have much of an opinion about contraceptive coverage a
month ago, you probably do now — and thanks to President Obama's intervention, you're now for it if
you're a Democrat and against it if you're a Republican: [1]
Edwards’s work suggests that Presidential persuasion isn’t effective with the public. Lee’s work
suggests that Presidential persuasion might actually have an anti-persuasive effect on the
opposing party in Congress. And, because our system of government usually requires at least
some members of the opposition to work with the President if anything is to get done, that
suggests that the President’s attempts at persuasion might have the perverse effect of making it
harder for him to govern.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 211
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
....The question, [Paul] Begala says, is: What is the alternative to Presidential persuasion?
“If you don’t try it at all, it guarantees you won’t persuade anybody,” he says. “And, to put
it simply, your people in Congress and in the country will hate you if you don’t.” That’s the
real dilemma for the modern White House. Aggressive, public leadership is typically ineffective
and, during periods of divided government, can actually make matters worse. But passivity is
even more dangerous. In that case, you’re not getting anything done and you look like you’re not
even trying.
The entire essay is worth a read. It's surprisingly persuasive. And yet, that bolded passage makes a key
point: even if presidential speeches don't accomplish much, we really don't know if shutting up
would be any better. After all, we've never had a modern president who specialized in shutting up.
And since it's not a trait likely to lead to the Oval Office, we probably never will.
I also think that Ezra doesn't really grapple with the strongest arguments on the other side. For one thing,
although there are examples of presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security
privatization), there are also example of presidential offensives that succeeded (George Bush on
going to war with Iraq). The same is true for broader themes. For example, Edwards found that
"surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on
health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities
increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure." OK. But what about the notion that tax
cuts are good for the economy? The public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax
revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the
Republican tax jihad has been one of the most influential political movements of the past three
decades.
More generally, I think it's a mistake to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific
pieces of legislation. Maybe those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the ability to
rally their own troops, and that matters. That's largely what Obama has done in the contraception
debate. Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq
until George Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed
like the most natural thing in the world to a lot of people.
Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few
speeches. It's more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters and doing it
over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as much
influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do. Truman made containment national
policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made workingclass resentment the driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the
Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and George Bush forged a
bipartisan consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense. It's true that in all of these
cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's also true that different
presidents might have shaped different consensuses.
Maybe I'm protesting too much. I actually think Ezra has the better of the argument here. But even if
public opinion can rarely be directly challenged and turned around, it can be molded and channeled.
Presidents and their party machines can influence which latent issues stay dormant and which ones
become national obsessions. They can take advantage of events in ways that others can't. After all,
talking is what human beings do. It's hard to credit the idea that it never really accomplishes
anything.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 212
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Flip-Flop Internal Link
Flip-flops wreck political capital
Cohen, Fordham University political science professor, 97
(Jeffrey E., 1997, Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy Making, p. 123)
A president cannot, without good reason, alter his policy stance. And even if he has good reason to
change his policy position on an issue, he may have to bear some costs from doing so. The public
and other political elites may view him as waffling, indecisive, weak, uncommitted, and/or
duplicitous. This seems very much to be one of the major charges against Bill Clinton’s presidency.
After abandoning his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut because of budget deficit pressures,
Clinton reoffered a tax cut in the wake of the devastating 1994 midterm elections, in which his party lost
control of Congress. From being publicly cool toward the North American Free Trade pact during his
presidential election campaign, he became an ardent promoter of that policy once in the Oval Office.
From these, and many other occasions, Clinton has developed an image of a waffling politician, one
who is forever changing his mind, perennially trying to stake out the most popular position with the
public and not necessarily a president who is able to lead.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 213
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Public
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 214
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Public Popularity Key to Agenda
The president’s agenda lives and dies by the polls – public approval is crucial
Gregg, Clarion political science professor, 97
(Gary, THE PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLIC, 1997, p. 143-44)
But if presidential power thrives by the polls, it might also die by the polls. While popular
presidents tend to get much of what they want and are willing to fight for, unpopular presidents are
trapped and constrained by the polls. As a senior aide to President Carter mused about that president's
problems with Congress controlled by his own party, "When the President is low in public opinion
polls, the members of Congress see little hazard in bucking him...They read the polls and from that
they feel secure in turning their backs on the President with political impunity." Unquestionably,
the success of the President’s policies bear a tremendous relationship to his popularity in the polls.
Without effective public relations, modern presidents and their programs whither on the vine of
public opinion.
Public opinion has a strong influence on the passage of legislation
Barrett & Eshbaugh-Soha, University of North Texas, 7
[Andrew W. & Matthew, March, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, “Presidential Success on
the Substance of Legislation”, pp. 100-112, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4623810, Accessed:
7-15-10)
Public attitudes also should influence the presi- dent's bargaining position. Despite evidence to the
contrary (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), presidents, White House staff, and
legislators believe that public approval is important to the president's success in Congress (Edwards
1997; Neustadt 1960; Rivers and Rose 1985). Theoretically, public support will improve the
president's bargain- ing position as members of Congress will not want to risk alienating their
constituents by opposing a popu- lar president's policy preferences. Therefore, we hypothesize that
the higher his level of approval, the more a final statute will reflect the president's policy
preferences.
Public opinion polls influence presidential agenda
Sparrow, University of Texas at Austin government professor, 8
(Bartholomew H., “Who Speaks for the People? The President, the Press, and Public Opinion in the
United States”, 10-13-8, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 578-592, Wiley
InterScience, accessed 7-8-9)
Public opinion serves as a metric of presidential leadership with respect to presidential approval
ratings. Presidents and their advisors use public opinion not as an absolute guide, but rather for
tactical purposes, and instrumentally, for reaching particular political ends (Jacobs and Shapiro
2000). In general, political analysts conceive of public opinion as a channel or guide for policy
makers, boundaries beyond which they cannot go but which also offer leeway in terms of the exact path
policy makers take. Public opinion serves as a "permissive limit" for policy makers (Almond 1950; Key
1961; Sobel 2001).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 215
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Bully Pulpit Key to Agenda
The president needs the bully pulpit—public support key to policies
Edwards, Texas A&M University distinguished professor of political science, et al 8
(George C. III, Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies, former Olin Professor of American Government at
Oxford, former John Adams Fellow at the University of London, associate Member of Nuffield College at
the University of Oxford and former director of The Center for Presidential Studies; Martin P.
Wattenberg, University of California Irvine professor of political science; and Robert L. Lineberry,
University of Houston political science professor; Pearson, Government in America: People, Politics and
Policy, Chapter 13: The Presidency,
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_edwards_ga_12/33/8517/2180364.cw/, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
Perhaps the greatest challenge to any president is to obtain and maintain the public's support.
Because presidents are rarely in a position to command others to comply with their wishes, they
must rely on persuasion. The necessity of public support leads the White House to employ public
relations techniques similar to those used to publicize products. Much of the energy the White House
devotes to public relations is aimed at increasing the president's public approval. The reason is simple: the
higher the president stands in the polls, the easier it is to persuade others to support presidential
initiatives. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, citizens seem to focus on the president's efforts and
stands on issues rather than on personality ("popularity") or simply how presidential policies affect
them (the "pocketbook"). Job-related personal characteristics of the president, such as integrity and
leadership skills, also play an important role in influencing presidential approval.
Commentators on the presidency often refer to it as a "bully pulpit," implying that presidents
can persuade or even mobilize the public to support their policies if they are skilled enough
communicators. Presidents frequently do attempt to obtain public support for their policies with
speeches over the radio or television or speeches to large groups. All presidents since Truman have
had media advice from experts on such matters as lighting, makeup, stage settings, camera angles, and
even clothing.
Obama can use the bully pulpit effectively—media coverage
Washington Post 11
(Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, 7/11/11, “Battling the bully pulpit¶ ,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/battling-the-bullypulpit/2011/07/10/gIQAI1oz7H_blog.html, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
Obama’s heightened public profile is a reminder of the power of the presidency. Obama knows that
when he holds a press conference, every cable network will carry it live in its entirety — and then
spend the remainder of the day poring over every pronouncement.
That level of coverage ensures that Obama can drive whatever message he likes into the public
consciousness. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and even the Republicans
running for president in 2012 can’t hope to match that sort of presidential bully pulpit.
(Don’t forget how President Bill Clinton used the bully pulpit to score a political win over thenHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich during the government shutdown of 1995/1996.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 216
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
The bully pulpit matters—presidential mobilization of his own party drives items on
his agenda
Drum, Mother Jones staff, 12
(Kevin, 3/12/12, Mother Jones, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit,” http://www.motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
More generally, I think it's a mistake to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of
legislation. Maybe those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the ability to rally their own
troops, and that matters. That's largely what Obama has done in the contraception debate.
Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq until George
Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the most
natural thing in the world to a lot of people.
Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few
speeches. It's more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters and doing it
over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as much
influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do. Truman made containment
national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon
made working-class resentment the driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the
rising tide of the Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and
George Bush forged a bipartisan consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense.
It's true that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think
it's also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 217
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Tea Party – Clout
The Tea Party controls the GOP – Bachmann’s rise proves
Holland, Irish Times, 11
(Steve, 6-27-11, “Tea Party luminary Bachmann begins Republican presidential selection bid” The Irish
Times, Lexis, Accessed July 6, 2011, EJONES)
CONSERVATIVE FIREBRAND Michele Bachmann will test the limits of how far a favourite of the
Tea Party movement can go when she formally launches her campaign for the 2012 Republican
presidential nomination today. The Minnesota congresswoman, who promises to cut spending, shrink the
government and repeal President Obama s 2010 healthcare overhaul law, may well pull the Republican
campaign toward the right in her bid for an upset victory. After months of flirting with a run, Ms
Bachmann (55) enters the Republican campaign with an event in her home town of Waterloo, Iowa. Her
strong performance at a New Hampshire debate two weeks ago has given her a boost. A Des Moines
Registerpoll issued on Saturday of likely participants in the state s Republican presidential caucuses
showed her in second place, with 22 per cent support, right behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt
Romney, with 23 per cent. Interviewed on the Fox News Company Dossier Sundayprogramme, she was
confronted with what the interviewer called past verbal gaffes and mis-statements of fact, and he asked
her: Are you a flake? That would be insulting, to say something like that, because I m a serious person,
Ms Bachmann responded, listing her achievements as a former tax lawyer with a postdoctorate degree in
federal tax law, a state lawmaker and businesswoman. Her rise is proof that the Tea Party conservative
movement remains a potent force after helping Republicans win control of the House in elections in
November. The Tea Party was wildly successful because it was not personality driven, said
Republican strategist Scott Reed. Bachmann s challenge is to harness that energy and score an early
state victory. Ms Bachmann will be vying with conservative rivals such as former Minnesota governor
Tim Pawlenty in Iowa, where social conservatives play a major role in Republican politics. Her presence
could dampen the chances that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will make a late entry into the
campaign, since their messages resonate with the same conservative voters. Unlike Ms Palin, Ms
Bachmann holds public office and has a role in the Republican Party, as head of the Tea Party House
caucus. Ms Bachmann s brand of conservatism has generated such proposed legislation as the Light
Bulb Freedom of Choice Act that would prevent the government from requiring Americans to use
energy-efficient light bulbs. The question for me is whether she can get any establishment support, said
Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. We know she has Tea Party support. But the question is, can she
gain credibility with the establishment, governors, senators, senior members of the party in and out of
office. Ms Bachmann has rejected as scare tactics warnings of economic catastrophe if lawmakers don t
approve raising the US debt ceiling. I have no intention of voting to raise the debt ceiling because, right
now, the federal government continues to spend more money than what it takes in, she told CBS.
(Reuters)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 218
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Tea Party – Clout – AT - Inexperience
The Tea Party was trained – they now have effective methods
Zernike, New York Times, 11
(Kate, 6-27-11, “Tea Party to Come Up With Debt-Cutting Proposals” The New York Times, June 27,
201, Lexis, Accessed July 5, 2011, EJONES)
While the Tea Party movement has led the charge for cutting the national debt, its supporters have
often struggled to explain how, exactly, they would do so. Now some are out to change that, joining
a Tea Party debt commission that plans to hold hearings over the summer, in the hopes of
delivering recommendations to lawmakers by January. The commission is being organized by
FreedomWorks, the libertarian advocacy group that helped grow the Tea Party movement and
mobilize it for the midterm elections. And its recommendations are likely to line up with the goals of
that group, which in turn tend to reflect those of libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute.
(FreedomWorks' motto is Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom, and it has worked against
environmental regulations and for increased privatization of health care.) ''If you look if you look at the
landscape in Washington, D.C., there's a lot of Democrats who control two-thirds of the process who are
now sitting on their hands, waiting to point fingers at Republicans who propose something, and there's too
many Republicans who are afraid that the public won't understand a serious proposal to solve the budget
deficit,'' said Matt Kibbe, the group's president.''We think, like with the first days of the Tea Party
movement, that the only way we will ever reduce the debt and balance the budget is if America beats
Washington and Tea Party activists take over this process, take over the public debate and engage the
American people in the hard work of making tough choices.'' FreedomWorks held training for about
150 activists from 30 states at its headquarters in Washington over the weekend, with sessions
dedicated to educating them about the budget proposals by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and
Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, both Republicans who strongly embrace libertarian
economic principles. The activists, along with FreedomWorks staff, came up with parameters for their
budget proposals, declaring that they would have to balance the federal budget within 10 years,
reduce federal spending to 18 percent of the gross domestic product, reduce the national debt to no
more than 66 percent of the G.D.P., assume that revenue accounts for no more than 19 percent of the
G.D.P., reduce federal spending by at least $300 billion in the first year and reduce federal spending by at
least $9 trillion over 10 years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 219
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Interest Groups Internal Link
The president needs interest groups to shape political coalitions—key to promoting
the agenda
Cohen, Fordham University political science professor, 12
(Jeffrey E., PhD in political science from University of Michigan, September 2012, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 42, Issue 3, “Interest Groups and Political Approval,”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03988.x/abstract, p. 451-452, Accessed
7/8/13, JC)
The direct effect of issue position on approval is important for another reason. It¶ demonstrates that
approval is not solely a function of valence issues, but also of positional¶ issues, which has
implications for presidential representation and accountability. ¶ Presidents, based on these findings,
are held accountable for the policy direction that they¶ steer as well as whether their chosen policies
work well or not. In selecting policies to¶ pursue, presidents thus have to consider not only how well
the policy works, but who will¶ be receptive to differing policy approaches. Some issues, in particular
positional issues,¶ may not have uniform impacts on voters—some will win or benefit from the course
the¶ president selects, while others will lose.
In thinking about the course to select on positional issues, presidents may enlist and¶ target some
interest groups. Especially in an era of polarized parties and fragmented¶ media, presidents may
face extra difficulty in building support coalitions. In this political¶ climate, interest groups become
increasingly important for presidential coalition building¶ efforts. With this in mind, the second
question raised in the article was whether¶ interest groups can influence member attitudes about the
president.
Using the 2006 CCES, I found that membership in an interest group that was¶ aligned with the
parties or ideology was associated with approval of the president.¶ However, we should not expect all
groups to affect members’ political opinions. The¶ information that interest groups provide to
members will have greater impact on hard as¶ opposed to easy issues. Comparing group
membership for issues characterized as easier¶ (abortion, the Iraq War) versus harder (Social
Reform, the environment), this is what the¶ analysis found. When an issue is hard, interest group
membership tightens the linkage¶ between that issue and presidential approval.
Presidential power limited by partisanship and media bias—now rely on interest
groups to shape public opinion
Cohen, Fordham University political science professor, 12
(Jeffrey E., PhD in political science from University of Michigan, September 2012, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 42, Issue 3, “Interest Groups and Political Approval,”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03988.x/abstract, p. 432, Accessed 7/8/13,
JC)
This article asks whether interest groups can affect their members’ evaluation of the¶ president. Recent
research suggest the growing importance of interest group support to¶ presidents, especially as the parties
have polarized and the media have fragmented, two¶ trends that limit the ability of presidents to generate
support in the public at-large¶ (Cohen 2008, 2010; Holmes 2008). Party polarization reduces the
likelihood that¶ opposition party members will support the president ( Bond and Fleisher 2001;
Jacobson¶ 2007; Newman and Siegle 2010). A fragmented media reduces the size of the audience¶ for
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 220
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
presidential communications, simultaneously forcing the president to compete with¶ other media
voices for the public’s attention (Baum and Kernell 1999; Young and¶ Perkins 2005).
As a consequence, presidents have turned to other sources for support, like interest¶ groups. The
literature on presidential-interest groups ties, however, focuses primarily on¶ institutional-level linkages,
for instance, the willingness of interest groups as organizations¶ to support the president, to coordinate
their congressional lobbying efforts with¶ the president’s, etc. (Loomis 2009; Peterson 1992; Pika 1991,
1999, 2009). Although¶ knowledge of the institutional linkages between presidents and interest groups is
scant,¶ even less is known about the factors associated with the ability of the president to¶ generate support
from members of interest groups, or even whether interest group¶ membership is relevant to member
opinions about the president.
Scholars believe that interest groups may influence opinions on issues: “Citizens’¶ judgments about . .
. issues rely crucially on the descriptions and rhetorical representations¶ of political elites and other
information sources, including the media and interest¶ groups” ( Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2002, 690).
Several studies suggest a linkage¶ between group membership and approval of the president.
Interest groups control public opinion of president on policy implementation—
grants voter support on hard issues
Cohen, Fordham University political science professor, 12
(Jeffrey E., PhD in political science from University of Michigan, September 2012, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 42, Issue 3, “Interest Groups and Political Approval,”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03988.x/abstract, p. 434-435, Accessed
7/8/13, JC)
Type of issue will mediate the effect of group media on member’s approval of the¶ president. Carmines
and Stimson’s (1980) distinction between “easy” and “hard” issues¶ provides a good starting place
for understanding how issue characteristics mediate the¶ effect of specialized group media on
members. Carmines and Stimson’s conceptualization¶ of an easy versus hard issue refers to the inherent
qualities of the issue. Since their¶ introduction of the concept, studies have offered alternative ways of
distinguishing easy¶ versus hard issues.
To Carmines and Stimson, an easy issue evokes a “gut reaction” from the voter; little¶ effort or thought is
required to take a stance on it. Easy issues are more likely to be¶ symbolic, have been on the agenda
for a long time, and deal more with policy ends than¶ means (1980, 80). In contrast, hard issues are
more complex and technical than easy ones,¶ debate often centers on policy means and
implementation rather than ends, and the issue¶ may have arrived recently on the political agenda.
Carmines and Stimson demonstrate¶ that more informed and politically sophisticated voters weigh hard
issues more heavily in¶ their vote choice than less informed and sophisticated voters.3
We are more likely to observe interest group effects on member approval on hard as¶ opposed to
easy issues. The general news media are likely to cover easy issues voluminously.¶ In fact, high news
coverage levels help make an issue easier for voters. Hard issues¶ may not receive as much general news
media attention. The technical and complex nature¶ of many hard issues renders them more difficult
for the general news media to provide in¶ depth and detailed coverage. Although technical debates
may involve intense conflicts,¶ such debates may be very dry or abstract, attributes that news
organizations, concerned¶ about paying subscribers, do not think will attract subscribers as much as the
clash of¶ personalities or political gain, themes often important in news coverage. Interest groups¶
communications do not suffer these limitations on issue coverage and may have incentives,¶ primarily
member interest and the mobilization of members, to cover hard issues in greater depth than found
in the general news medial. By doing so, they provide¶ members with information not generally
available from the general news media.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 221
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
If the general news media cover an issue profusely and in depth, which is likely the¶ case for many easy
issues, communications from the interest group’s specialized media¶ may not add to the member’s store of
information and may not “prime” or “frame” the¶ issue beyond the effects due to exposure to general news
coverage. If the issue is easy, the¶ advocacy presented in the group’s specialized media may have little
impact on member¶ understanding of the issue and/or the implications of the president’s action. However,¶
when the issue is not covered much or in depth in the general news media, generally the¶ case for
hard issues, interest group media provide new information to its members,¶ information that they
would not necessarily possess otherwise or would find very costly¶ to collect and process. And the issue
advocacy found in the interest group media may be¶ especially helpful for the member in
interpreting, making sense of, the issue and the¶ president’s action on the issue. This is more likely
for hard than easy issues.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 222
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Winners Win
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 223
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Not a Win
Contentious debate ensures plan is not perceived as a victory
Mann, Brookings Governance Studies senior fellow, 10
[Thomas, Brookings, November, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections”,
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/11_midterm_elections_mann.aspx, accessed 6-20-11]
The well-documented successes of the financial stabilisation and stimulus initiatives are invisible to
a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have
been. The painfully slow recovery from the global financial crisis and Great Recession have led
most Americans to believe these programmes have failed and as a consequence they judge the
President and Congress harshly.
HIGHLY POLARISED That perception of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious
process by which Obama’s initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years
developed a highly polarised party system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and
unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in which
majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place.
Republicans adopted a strategy of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major
component of the President’s agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on
matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in killing,
weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic majority.
Link outweighs “winners win” turn
Silber, Political Science PhD, 7
[Marissa Silber, Political Science PhD Student at the University of Florida, Prepared for delivery at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007,
“WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?
UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND
POLITICIANS,”
http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/8/9/p210893_index.html,
Accessed 7/9/12, THW]
Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term. If a
President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that “capital
declines over time – public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be
rebuilt, but only to a limited extent. The decline of capital makes it difficult to access information,
recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of
political capital, this paper helps determine if such capital can be replenished or if a lame duck can
accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be developed.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 224
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win Theory Flawed
Winners win isn’t true for Obama
Galston, Brookings, Governance Studies, Senior Fellow 10
(William, 11-4-10, “President Barack Obama’s Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political
Difficulties”, Brookings , http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/11/04-obama-galston, accessed
7-9-12 FFF)
Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from
one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each
difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the
next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they
supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than
did administration strategists.
Winners win theory is false - Congress too polarized
Mann, Brookings, Governance Studies, Senior Fellow 10’
(Thomas E, November 2010, “AMERICAN POLITICS ON THE EVE OF THE MIDTERM
ELECTIONS”, Brookings,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEwQFjAA&url=http%
3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2Frc%2Farticles%2F2010%2F11_midterm_
elections_mann%2F11_midterm_elections_mann.pdf&ei=QaL7T6qvO8WhrAGpwNyLCQ&usg=AFQjC
NHgxxtq3WWIhoKbhRhv2P1Q0oPtjw, accessed 7-9-12 FFF)
That perception of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obama’s
initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised
party system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each.
But these parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in which majorities are unable
readily to put their programmes in place.
Republicans adopted a strategy of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major
component of the President’s agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on
matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in
killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic
majority.
Health care disproves winners win
Galston, Brookings Institute Governance Studies Senior Fellow, 10
[William A., Senior Fellow of Governance Studies @ Brookings, 11/4/10, Brookings Institute, “President
Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties,”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/11/04-obama-galston , Accessed 7/9/13]
The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted much too
long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much
of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless health care debate
strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of
the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the public that health reform
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 225
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even antidemocratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a policy success; but
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—a political liability. Indeed, most of the
Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives undertaken during
the first two years, only one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support. In a September
2010 Gallup survey, 52 percent of the people disapproved of the economic stimulus, 56 percent
disapproved of both the auto rescue and the health care bill, and an even larger majority—61 percent—
rejected the bailout of financial institutions.[v] Democrats’ hopes that the people would change their
minds about the party’s signature issue—universal health insurance—after the bill passed were not
fulfilled. (It remains to be seen whether sentiment will change in coming years as provisions of the bill
are phased in—that is, if they survive what will no doubt be stiff challenges in both Congress and the
states.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 226
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win Backfires
Winners win isn’t true – going public backfires –raising the salience hurts the
president
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 3-19-12
[Ezra, New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded? Who listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
MSG]
Representative Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, takes Lee’s thesis even further. “The more
high-profile the communication effort, the less likely it is to succeed,” he says. “In education
reform, I think Obama has done brilliantly, largely because it’s out of the press. But on higherprofile things, like deficit reduction, he’s had a much tougher time.”
Edwards’s work suggests that Presidential persuasion isn’t effective with the public. Lee’s work
suggests that Presidential persuasion might actually have an anti-persuasive effect on the opposing
party in Congress. And, because our system of government usually requires at least some members
of the opposition to work with the President if anything is to get done, that suggests that the
President’s attempts at persuasion might have the perverse effect of making it harder for him to
govern.
[Lee = Frances Lee, political science professor at the University of Maryland]
Hostile political climate means even wins are losses for Obama
Baker, New York Times White House correspondent, 10
[Peter Baker, foreign policy reporter, 10/12/10, NYT, “Education of a President,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html, Accessed 7/9/13]
But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White
House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter
how many bills he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with
little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a
culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.
Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for their boss two
years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this
environment, they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be,
at best, average. “We’re all a lot more cynical now,” one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the
Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their own
misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that
we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we
could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right
word, but we were overconfident.” The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers
was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan
coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against Obama, his early efforts to woo the
opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to
roll over, we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside
adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the
Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.” Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 227
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Democrat in the upper chamber and Obama’s ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for
the absence of bipartisanship. “I think his fate was sealed,” Durbin said. “Once the Republicans decided
they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it extremely difficult and dragged it out for a longer
period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them there’s a
problem, they want a solution.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who
grade Obama harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on
substantive accomplishments,” he told me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health
care legislation is “an incredible achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely,
unqualifiedly, enormously successful,” in Rendell’s judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be
tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it
early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama supporter. “We didn’t
use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 228
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Media Undermines Winners Win
Media framing undercuts the effectiveness of presidential promotions
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 23-24, ProQuest, AMS]
The Media Filter
Obama's persistent, substantive and in-depth comments raise an intriguing question: why would
shrewd observers conclude that Obama did little to rally the public behind the ACA when he was "going
public," as presidency research predicts? The answer lies less with Obama and his lack of effort than with
America's information system.
Table 2 shows that the national press of record only covered 45% of all Obama's statements on
health reform. Its reporting was even scarcer after the ACA's passage, when its coverage dropped to
20% . In other words, at the moment when Americans most needed to learn about the ACA's contents,
only one out of five of Obama's addresses about health reform was conveyed to the country.
Even the limited coverage of Obama's speeches about health reform often avoided in-depth reporting
on the substantive components of reform in favor of conveying conflict among politicians and their
strategic schemes. More than two-thirds of all press stories focused on tactical maneuvering for
power and advantage; only 13% primarily reported the policy content of the president's addresses; and
the remaining portion conveyed both the policy and politics of reform.5
Take, for example, Obama's momentous January 2010 State of the Union plea to continue to pursue
reform after Scott Brown's startling win of Ted Kennedy's senate seat. To a coveted national audience, he
made the case for the economic, fiscal, and moral urgency of action and outlined his approach to "protect
every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry," expand access by "giv[ing] small
businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan," and "require
every insurance plan to cover preventive care" (Obama 2010). The coverage by the New York Times
(Stolberg 2010) never mentioned his reforms to establish insurance company regulations, greater
affordability, and improved access to prevention. Instead, the coverage focused nearly uniformly on
political intrigue: Obama's address was framed as "com[ing] at a particularly rocky point in his
presidency," presenting a contrasting with his campaign "promise to change the culture of Washington,"
and beating up on both parties in Congress - he was presented as "chastis[ing] Republicans for
working in lock-step against him and . . . warn[ing] Democrats to stiffen their political spines." For those
who only learned of the president's speech through the media, they would likely be unaware of the
tangible reforms that were in the works and might be reasonably cynical of Washington playing politics
with their lives (Cappella and Jamieson 1997).
The media's muted coverage of health reform and preoccupation with conflict and intrigue
frustrated Obama, as it had his predecessors including George W Bush, who derisively referred to the
press as "the filter." The "virtues of this legislation for Americans with insurance and Americans without
it," Obama opined, "have been entirely obscured by fear and distraction" both by opponents and by press
reports that "breathlessly declar[e] what something means for a political party, without really talking
much about what it means for a country."
The combination of a well -funded and carefully honed opposition and the media's incomplete and
selective reporting of Obama's public promotions contributed to public ambivalence and confusion about
health reform - the end-state that has alarmed the President's critics. Six out of 10 Americans report not
knowing enough about the personal impact of ACA, and most remain unaware of the core features
of the law - nearly all of which enjoy majority backing even among people who identify as Republicans,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 229
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
according to Kaiser Family Foundation surveys.7 Nonetheless, the public is divided or a bit opposed to
reform, with favorable and unfavorable views generally in the 40% range in 26 Kaiser surveys since ACA
was signed into law.8
The media portrays politics as a stage for wins and losses crowding out vital
dissemination of policy, this undermines presidential promotion
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 25-26, ProQuest, AMS]
Presidential Communications -within the Information System
Obama joins a large pool of presidents who sought to capitalize on their unrivalled access to the media
and to the presidency's enormous capacities for promotion but failed to impact public opinion as they
desired. President George W Bush devoted enormous effort and resources to rallying the country to
support the Iraq War and to back his efforts to partially privatize Social Security; neither campaign moved
public opinion in the directions he sought (Edwards 2007). Bill Clinton launched an ambitious public
push for health reform in 1993 and was rewarded with stronger public opposition within a year of
unveiling his proposal.
Four components of the information system constrain and condition the effectiveness of White House
promotion. First, the effectiveness of presidential appeals depends on how the media process them
based on their organizational incentives and processes. The media's search for audience and
pursuit of general (if unevenly embraced) norms of informing the public motivate journalists and
editors to report on public affairs in ways that will attract and entertain (Graber and Holyk 2011).
What the president says - no matter who he is and what gilded words he chooses - will routinely be
subject to selective and refracted coverage by editors and reporters who choose (based on their own
incentives and norms) what to cover, how to frame it, and who to use as sources (Just 201 1; Patterson
1994). The communications revolution - cable stations and social media networking as well as online
news sites and news-aggregating services - have atomized the shared public square into numerous,
disconnected cubbyholes that reinforce existing perceptions and attitudes and resist presidential appeals
(Shapiro and Jacobs 2011). In addition to erecting new hurdles to presidential persuasion, the
information revolution has further complicated presidential promotions by reducing audience size
and segmenting it; presidential failure has promoted them to redirect their appeals from broad
national audiences to narrower subgroups of partisans, local communities, and other slices of voters
(Baum and Kernell 1999; Cohen 2009; Wattenberg 2004).
The second component is the intersection of the media and politics, and the media's close coverage of
political conflict (Patterson 1994). The fixation of the traditional print and broadcast media with
political conflict and strategy may be lamentable from the perspective of public education, but it
accurately reflects partisan polarization that, for instance, defined the ACA's legislative journey - no
Republicans voted for it while Democrats overwhelming backed it - as well as earlier health reform
episodes (Cappella and Jamieson 1997). Indeed, the media reacts to presidential promotions not by
passively accepting them but by portraying them as staged orchestrations and by expanding
coverage of opponents (Jacobs 2010).
The third component is the public's existing set of attitudes and style of information processing. From
the start, the president's promotions face outright suspicion from a large proportion of the country
that affiliates with the opposing party. Worse, today's historic polarization nearly ensures potent
opposition to White House initiatives and sophisticated countermobilization strategies (Cameron and
Park 201 1 ; Jacobs and Shapiro 2000). For presidents, their promotions contend with ingrained
patterns of information processing in which oppositional framings bypass critical cognitive
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 230
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
inspection (Druckman 2004; Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 201 1). The health reform episode illustrates
what political psychologists call "motivated reasoning": warnings by reform opponents about "death
panels" and personal threats, which the media extensively reported, had the effect of priming many
Americans to retrieve entrenched partisan beliefs and attitudes about government and to grow uncertain
about, or turn against, reform.
Fourth, the design of policy has powerful and potentially enduring effects on public attitudes and
behaviors that are difficult for presidents to override (Mettler and Soss 2004). In the case of health
reform, the public's muted awareness and evaluations of the ACA were in part a function of the law's
policy design and, in particular, the decision of lawmakers to delay implementation of tangible benefits to
2014 and to rely on "submerged" policy tools (such as tax subsidies and the state option to avoid or mute
the government's public involvement in operating the new insurance programs) (Mettler 2011).
In short, presidents face enormous hurdles in delivering their message through the information
system. The mutually reinforcing incentives of the information system routinely work to crowd out
meaningful reporting on policy and feeds cynicism about the purpose of government (Cappella and
Jamieson 1997).
Institutional and informational systems restrict the power of presidential promotion
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 24-25, ProQuest, AMS]
Putting Public Presidency in Context
Disciplinary borrowings from the field of the "public presidency" have feasted on the "public" dimension
of White House promotions but overlooked the second component, which references the seminal shift
from studying the individual of the president to investigating the institution oí the presidency. The field's
research finds that the origins, forms, and conditional effects of presidential promotions are a
function of both the organizational processes of the executive office as well as broader sets of
relationships with the country's information system, institutional contexts, and organizational
rivals.
The case of health reform spotlights the analytic significance of situating personal presidential
behavior within the institutional and organizational contexts of American politics. What is striking
about Obama's handling of health reform is not that he failed to make frequent and compelling public
presentation - a failure that could be attributed to his personal flaws and limitations. Rather, what stands
out is that he did devote substantial time and resources to public promotion and still was unable to
produce favorable press coverage and public opinion. The answer to this puzzle can be found in the
institutional and informational systems that impose structural limits on White House promotions
and open up opportunities for strategic choices to capitalize on the capacities of the presidency and
exploit the weaknesses of opponents. Although a detailed analysis is not feasible, I outline core features
of America's broader political context that condition the effects of presidential promotions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 231
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Going Public Doesn’t Influence Congress
Presidential promotion doesn’t translate to legislative outcomes – even if public gets
on board
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 26-27 ProQuest, AMS]
Institutions and Interests Trump Presidential Appeals
Presidency research delivers a double blow to exaggerated claims about the general efficacy of
presidential promotions: not only do they rarely deliver what the White House and its supporters
expect, but the preoccupation with them distracts from the dominant dynamics of policy making entrenched institutional and organizational processes. Put another way, even if presidents (including
Obama) impact public opinion as they desire, rigorous research provides no reasonable grounds to a
general expectation that legislative outcomes (including health reform) are likely to meaningfully
change in ways that would avoid compromises, delays, and deadlocks.
Of particular importance are interbranch relations. They drive national decision making and routinely
blunt or override the personal appeals of presidents for public support, helping to account for the
selectivity and contingency of presidential efforts to move public opinion.
Presidents can barnstorm the country to champion their proposals, but their success in Congress is
largely a function of its partisan composition: fellow partisans generally support the White House,
legislators in the opposing party usually oppose the administration, and the probability of both tendencies
has increased as partisan polarization has widened (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Edwards 1989; Jacobson
2003). The biggest factor in the passage of comprehensive national health reform was unified Democratic
Party control of the legislative and executive branches and the largest congressional majorities in decades.
Fellow partisans regularly support presidents as a general rule, but even this bond does not guarantee
White House success: one party does not typically control both lawmaking branches (as Obama
discovered after the 2010 midterm elections) and presidents face resistance from fellow partisans who do
not share their philosophical orientation (as exhibited by the splits within the Democratic Party over
health reform in 2009-10). These structural features, and not Obama's personal temperament or
promotional skills, set the parameters of what was feasible.
While partisan and ideological forces predispose certain legislative outcomes, the institutional rules
and procedures of Congress influence the form, pace, and tenor of lawmaking. One set of picket fences
consist of the increasing and broadening use of the 60-vote filibuster requirement that the opposition
deploys to bog down and block legislation (Bondurant 201 1). On health reform, the filibuster required
the votes of all 58 Democrats and two independents, empowering each senator to bargain for goodies
under the threat of withholding his or her support and sending reform to defeat. The infamous
"Cornhusker Kickback" was struck to secure one of the final Democratic votes for the ACA - Nebraska's
Ben Nelson. Adding still more opportunity for delay, deadlock, and doom were legislative budget rules
that positioned the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as the official scorekeeper on the revenue and
costs of new legislation. (See Jacobs and Skocpol 2012 for detailed discussion of these dynamics.)
Presidential promotional efforts to dictate the pace, form, and disposition of legislation are
routinely trumped by the durable and thorough-going influences of a turbo-charged system of
institutional warfare.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 232
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
“Going public” doesn’t solve the link – health care proves – Obama’s persistent
promotion of health care failed to rally support
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 16-17, ProQuest, AMS]
The tendency of well-developed research fields to overfill is well known; a corresponding challenge is the
tendency to misunderstand or misapply that research by scholars plowing different plots. The mistaken or
incomplete interpretation of research on the public presidency presents a particularly egregious case of
poor harvesting. Although political observers and scholars outside the public presidency field project
"going public" as a highly influential weapon, scholars in the field converge on modest expectations
in which presidential promotions have limited, selective, and conditional effects. This pattern is
illustrated through content analyses of Barack Obama's speeches and the media's coverage of them. The
findings correspond with the expectations of the public presidency field: Obama conducted extensive
public promotions of his signature legislative accomplishment-health reform-and his efforts failed
to move media coverage, public opinion, or the legislative process. As research on the public
presidency expands its scope and reach, there is a growing opportunity to correct its misapplications and,
more positively, to build an unusually diverse research community that spans political theory and the
social sciences.
Doug Arnold (1982) distinguished between "overtilled" and "undertilled" areas of research in American
politics. His purpose was to encourage a reallocation of scholarly labor from extensively studied areas
with low and diminishing yields of new knowledge to fields that have "largely been abandoned, although
they still offer great promise, [or have] . . . never been well cultivated at all" (92).
Attention to the allocation of research labor needs to be complemented by scrutiny of another dimension the harvesting and distribution of research outside fields and subfields to the broader discipline devoted to
studying politics and policy. Though these research fields tend to produce veritable warehouses of
findings, they are poorly understood or misapplied by scholars plowing different plots. In these cases, the
misallocation problem that Arnold identified becomes compounded by a breakdown in the distribution
system that delivers the fruits of labor to scholarly consumers. Gaps between the specialized research of
particular fields or subfields (what I refer to as "field research") and broader disciplinary learning put
researchers at risk of adopting assumptions and theoretical expectations about fields outside their areas of
expertise that have been proven flawed or false. Such underharvesting raises questions about the way the
political science community operates and the degree to which that community generates new knowledge
through cumulative processes of learning and interaction.
The purpose of this article is to use research on the promotional presidency to stimulate a discussion
about cross-field engagement and intellectual dialogue within political science. As an enormous body of
research on the U.S. president's public promotions piles up, political observers and scholars outside
the presidency field continue to mistakenly or incompletely interpret the research and, in cases
where they do not draw on political science research at all, they have been prone to adopt
unfounded assumptions. Initial critical assessments of Barack Obama's first term in office, and
specifically his public promotion of health reform, illustrate this general pattern, and pose a
revealing puzzle: Obama engaged in public promotion and his efforts failed to move public
opinion or the legislative process. While Obama's sobering experience with health reform may be
surprising to popular commentators and some political scientists, it is consistent (as I discuss shortly)
with a large body of presidency research - throwing the underharvesting challenge into relief.
Understanding the conditional nature of presidential promotion requires appreciation for the
interaction of agency and structure. White House appeals for public support often collide with
structural constraints cemented into America's institutional and informational systems. Yet,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 233
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
institutions and interests also open up choices for strategic presidents who can adjust to lure allies and
skillfully persuade them to deploy their institution resources to serve the president's agenda.
“Going public” has little effect on Congress – only targeted groups achieve minimal
effects
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 18-19, ProQuest, AMS]
This research also challenges the causal chain in which "going public" is expected to mobilize public
support that, in turn, pressures members of Congress and other policy makers to adopt the
president's policies. Investigations repeatedly report that presidential promotions have limited
impacts on Congress. Presidents who rely on orchestrated appeals frequently find themselves
exerting only "marginal" influence on lawmaking (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Edwards 1989, 2007) and
victims of squandered political capital, frustrated public expectations, and potentially missed
opportunities for privately negotiated pacts (Baum 2004; Jacobs and Shapiro 2000; Jerit 2008).
While extensive research suggests minimal effects of presidential promotion, it does not justify
"writing off presidential leadership as totally ineffective" (Tedin, Rottinghaus, and Rodgers 201 1,
506). A more precise distillation of the research is that presidential appeals fall short of White House
objectives but can exert modest selective influence under certain conditions. Modest influence by
presidents has been detected in discrete components of the policy process, specifically in agendasetting, where a president can moderately elevate Americans' attention to his initiatives, even
though he is unable to exclude other issues (Cohen 1982, 1995; Edwards and Barrett 2000; Peterson
I99O). The White House may enjoy more influence when it has shifted from seeking to influence "the
nation" to targeting subgroups of party activists, local communities, and discrete voting blocs
(Cohen 2009; Druckman and Jacobs 201 1; Tedin, Rottinghaus, and Rodgers 2011; Wattenberg 2004).
These selective effects tend to be a bit more likely under conditions of relatively muted public
opposition and countermobilization (Cameron and Park 2011) and elevated public support (CanesWrone 2001, 2006; Page and Shapiro 1984).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 234
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Going Public Doesn’t Influence Public
Presidential promotion is ineffective in creating a mindset shift amongst the public
Jacobs, Humphrey School Center for the Study of Politics and Governance director
& University of Minnesota political science professor, 13
[Lawrence R. Jacobs, “The Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions”, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 43 Issue 1, P. 18, ProQuest, AMS]
Research on the Public Presidency and Disciplinary Presumptions
Over the past three decades, the expanding field of presidential research has developed more sophisticated
and diverse analytic approaches, and devoted enormous time and effort to studying the president's
widening commitment to promote himself and his policies to Americans and thereby go "over the heads"
of Washington lawmakers and power brokers. This shift produced the large and vibrant subfield of the
"public presidency" (Edwards 1983), which has developed in two broad directions. The first is a
meticulous charting of the frequency of "going public" as well as its forms and audiences (Kernell 1986).
Researchers trace the rise of the public presidency to changing norms of governance and speech
(Tulis 1987), to the dissipation of power and the onset of policy paralysis (Kernell 1986), and to
communications strategies that are geared toward mobilizing public support in order to augment
scarce political resources and satisfy voter expectations (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000).
The second strand is a rigorous examination of the effects of presidential public promotions, which
generally - though not uniformly - stresses the limits on White House efforts to mold Americans to
their designs. George Edwards enjoys the distinction of both helping to launch the "public presidency"
field (1983) and documenting its ineffectiveness in manufacturing public preferences or higher
approval ratings (1996a, 1996b, 2??3, 2007). Recent summaries of "minimal effects" research
confirm that "evidence is mounting that presidents find difficulty in leading public opinion" (Tedin,
Rottinghaus, and Rodgers 2011, 506) and that their "effectiveness [is] more problematic [than often
assumed]" (Cameron and Park 2011, 443).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 235
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Winners Win [Hirsh version]
They say Winners Win but1. Winner’s win is not true. Political capital is not regenerated from a political
win and it is finite. If Obama goes through heated debate he will have to
invest lots of energy and debate which will irritate people that he needs later –
he has to expend something to get a bill passed
2. Illogical- If winner’s win was true, then presidents would never lose because
they would always generate more capital after a win which would just lead
them always winning.
3. There’s a massive inconsistency in his argument- he says Johnson was able to
gain momentum by immediately attacking the biggest controversies, but then
acknowledges that Obama was completely drained by the passage of
Obamacare- that disproves that wins carry over
4. Hirsh outlines no threshold to winning – does it have to be double-digit
majority or a landslide? Can it be a very marginal win? Who has to perceive
it as a win? How many wins can Obama get until he loses?
5. Hirsch bases his winners win arguments on LBJ’s presidency – political
theories have changed – new congress, different times and a new president
makes PC necessary because Obama can’t force their way through bills
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 236
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
6. And Hirsh interprets it the wrong way – he says that people will want to get
on the winning side after the passage of a tough bill, but it goes the other way
– if he looks unpopular pushing legislation, people will want to get off the
losing side and will turn against him. Even if bandwagoning is true, Midterm
elections make bandwagoning impossible—no republican will let Obama
twist there arm – it’s a matter of Obama’s influence.
7. Winners win is false on controversial issues—Hirsh’s analysis on loss of
political capital after the health care debacle proves that even if victories on
easy bills sustain Obama’s influence, it’s not true for divisive issues. The plan
crushes his momentum and at worst, means the plan can’t garner offense off
the link turn.
8. Obama’s also the focal point of political issues – no one knows other
government figures and shown in the media – when he pushes unpopular
legislation, congress and the public blame him
9. The only empirical defense of this claim is about Lyndon B. Johnson, but it
also says that his political wins concerned issues that appealed to public
consciousness- if anything, it just means that public opinion matters to
political capital, not that wins build unstoppable momentum
10. FDR proves winner’s win is not true- he politically won with New Deal
programs but couldn’t pack the Supreme Court- also proves PC is limited
Hirsh, National Journal Chief Correspondent, 13
[Michael, Updated: May 30, 2013 | 12:26 a.m., February 7, 2013 | 8:10 p.m., “There’s No Such Thing as
Political Capital”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207, accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because
the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an
astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some
described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide
victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate,
Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political
capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by
putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly
reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to
Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure,
Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of
political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong
time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they
opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 237
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Theory Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 238
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Generic Politics Good
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Fairness: Politics DA is at the heart of why most plans haven’t been done – we should be able to
talk about the real world political ramifications.
2. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 239
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Bottom of the Docket
Political process begins as soon as the plan is passed, which also triggers the expenditure of political
capital in Congressional meetings and votes, ensuring a link to the plan.
Docket is not a real thing – Obama pushes what he thinks he can pass at the moment.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Neg ground: this interpretation can make any DA nonunique.
2. Makes the aff a moving target – they can only defend the interpretation of fiat of the 1AC.
3. Education: Politics DA is at the core of why most plans haven’t been done – it’s key to test the
real world political ramifications, which increases in-depth knowledge of the topic.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 240
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Winding Way
Political process triggers the expenditure of political capital in Congressional meetings and votes.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Fairness: Politics DA is at the heart of why most plans haven’t been done – we should be able to
talk about the real world political ramifications
2. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 241
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – No Backlash
Link arguments prove there is backlash and political reactions to the plan.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
2. Fairness: the same interpretation could be extended to no link out of all DAs – steals core neg
ground.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 242
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Vote No
This round isn’t a proxy congressional debate. The format does not model Congress.
Their interpretation of debate is bad:
1. Infinitely regressive: All DAs would hypothetically be triggered or inevitable just by the neg just
introducing them in the round – takes out the majority of core neg ground.
2. Education: the plan can’t be fully tested without DAs, so policymaking knowledge is lost.
3. Voter for fairness and education.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 243
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Non-Intrinsic
Obama has to spend political capital to pass the plan – that is the 1NC ____________ link evidence.
Political capital expenditure proves the DA is intrinsic.
Intrinsicness arguments are bad for debate:
1. Infinitely Regressive: their interpretation means all DAs can hypothetically be solved by an
external policy option or intervening actor.
2. Neg Ground: analyzing political consequences is key to fully testing the plan. Their interpretation
excludes all politics DAs, which are at the core of neg ground.
3. Education: Politics DA is key to test the real world political ramifications, which increases indepth knowledge of the topic.
4. Voter for fairness and education.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 244
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Fiat Solves the Link
The aff gets the minimum amount of fiat necessary. They can fiat the plan is passed, but they can’t fiat the
political process of the plan.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Real-world Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision
makers. It also allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world
Congressional discussion of the plan.
2. Fairness: Politics DAs are at the core of neg ground. Don’t let them spike out of real world
process implications with an arbitrary definition of fiat that provides no educational benefit – we
could never win a link to a DA with this interp of fiat.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 245
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 246
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Aff Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 247
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Uniqueness
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 248
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Congressional Backlash Now
Congress bashing Obama on foreign policy now
Roberts, The Guardian, 13
[Dan Roberts, Staff Writer, The Guardian, May 30th 2013, “Obama's cautious approach to Syrian
intervention sparks growing criticism,” Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
Foreign policy has long been where second-term US presidents turn when they run out of political clout
back home. But for Barack Obama, accusations of drift and inaction on the domestic front are only
compounded by his lack of progress internationally, particularly when it comes to the biggest
challenge of all: preventing war in Syria from fatally destabilising the Middle East.
For months now, the White House has sought to tread a cautious line over Syria's bitter civil war resisting pressure from Europe and Israel to intervene militarily over alleged chemical weapons use
by the Syrian government and pushing instead for a negotiated departure for President Assad.
Given the recent US track record on regime change and alleged weapons of mass destruction, many
international observers are no doubt relieved it has so far opted to take a back seat this time.
But as the continued slaughter in Syria begins to threaten peace across the region, a growing question in
Washington and other Western capitals is whether Obama's caution reflects a prudent
understanding of the pitfalls of intervention or a failure to get on top of events?
Criticism from Republican hawks such as John McCain is to be expected, but even some of the
administration's closest advisers are now wondering aloud whether the White House needs a plan
B.
Fred Hof, who was Hillary Clinton's special representative on Syria until last September, warns that
relying exclusively on open-ended peace talks risks preventing the west from acting more directly.
"For a long time after Vietnam our government was paralysed with doubt; we are seeing that
process again in the wake of the catastrophic war in Iraq," ambassador Hof told a conference at the
United States Institute of Peace on Wednesday. "We have a government that believes that whatever
we do it can only make things worse. What this ignores is how bad things are now."
Part of the problem, argues Hof, is that other powers such as Russia, Iran and Lebanese militant group
Hezbollah are much more determined to prop up Assad than the West is to support the rebels. "This is a
war that Iran and Hezbollah have decided not to lose," he says. "We are not yet seeing that level of
resolve on behalf of the US administration."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 249
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Mexico Engagement Now
Mexican energy fights now
Kasperowicz, The Hill, 13
[Pete, 6-27-13, The Hill, “House votes to implement US-Mexico offshore energy deal,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/308263-house-votes-to-implement-us-mexico-offshoreenergy-deal, accessed 7-7-13, MSG]
The House on Thursday passed a bill that would implement a U.S.-Mexico agreement on offshore
energy development on the countries' maritime border despite opposition from Democrats who
called it an attack on the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
Members voted 256-171 in favor of the bill, with 28 Democrats voting with Republicans to
implement the deal approved by the Obama administration.
Several Democrats said during debate that they support the 2012 agreement between the U.S. and
Mexico. But they pointed out that the legislation includes language that would waive a provision of
Dodd-Frank that requires companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments.
Republicans said this waiver is needed because Mexico has not decided how it would receive
royalties from energy development under the agreement.
"This would create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect
royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments," House
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said. "This would then block
American workers from being able to develop these resources.
"Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect jobs American jobs
and American-made energy in this instance," he added. "Without it, foreign-controlled energy
companies could develop this American energy resource, and the royalty payments to Mexico
would still be undisclosed and kept private."
Democrats rejected this and called it an attempt to dismantle Dodd-Frank. Rep. Peter DeFazio (DOre.) said the language is "totally unnecessary" and added that the provision waives Dodd-Frank's
reporting rules for all offshore energy deals between the U.S. and a foreign government.
There’s economic engagement now—should have triggered the link
Valencia, Global Voices political analyst, 13
[Robert, 5-20-13, World Policy, “U.S. and Latin America: Economic Cooperation without
Militarization?,” http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/20/us-and-latin-america-economiccooperation-without-militarization, accessed 7-7-13, MSG]
President Obama’s meeting with Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto centered on the historic
economic relationship between the two countries, and furthered their conversation on economic
and commercial initiatives as well as immigration issues. Additionally, Peña Nieto highlighted
Mexico’s economic growth and the necessity for bolstering student exchange. Both leaders agreed
to create an economic team led by Vice President Joe Biden and Mexican Secretary of the Treasury Luis
Videgaray. They resolved to create projects to improve infrastructure and security along the 3,000
kilometer-long border, one of the world’s largest.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 250
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Venezuela Engagement Now
The link is non-unique—USAID and the State Department already have multiple
programs for engagement in Venezuela
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 9
[Mark P., July 28th 2009, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S.
Policy,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32488.pdf, p.38, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
U.S. Funding for Democracy Projects
The United States has funded democracy-related projects in Venezuela for a number of years
through a variety of programs funded by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
USAID, through its Office of Transition Initiatives, has funded democracy projects in Venezuela
since 2002, with the goals of strengthening democratic institutions, promoting space for dialogue,
and encouraging citizens’ participation in democratic processes. Transitions Initiatives (TI)
funding in recent years was $5 million in FY2005, $3.7 million in FY2006, $3 million in
FY2007, $3.6 million in FY2008, and an estimated $2 million in FY2009. According to USAID,
the funding supports projects implemented by five U.S. organizations: Development Alternatives
Inc, which focuses on dialogue, public debate, citizen participation and leadership training; the
International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which offer technical
assistance for political parties; Freedom House, which provides technical support to human rights
groups; and the Pan-American Development Foundation, which provides support to civil
society.130
The State Department has supported democracy projects in Venezuela largely through Economic
Support Funds (ESF), but also recently through Development Assistance (DA) funding. In recent
years, the following amounts have been provided: in FY2004, $1.497 million in ESF; in FY2005,
$2.4 million in ESF; in FY2007, $1.6 million in ESF; and in FY2008, $6.5 million in DA and
almost $3 million in ESF. For FY2009, an estimated $5 million in ESF will be provided for
democracy projects, while the FY2010 request is for $6 million in ESF
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 251
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 252
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Foreign Policy
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 253
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Foreign Policy – Public Doesn’t Care
No link – Public opinion shifts are temporary—foreign policy especially prone to
slippage
Edwards, Texas A&M University distinguished professor of political science, 6
(George C. III, Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies, former Olin Professor of American Government at
Oxford, former John Adams Fellow at the University of London, associate Member of Nuffield College at
the University of Oxford and former director of The Center for Presidential Studies, On Deaf Ears: The
Limits of the Bully Pulpit, p. 168-169, Google Books, Accessed 7/10/13, JC)
In addition, opinion changes that occur may well be likely to be temporary. Even under unusual
circumstances when people have participated in intense deliberations with fellow citizens and
listened to the testimony of¶ politicians and policy experts, changes of opinion have been found to be
largely temporary.41 Members of the public who are the easiest to sway in the short run are those
without crystallized opinions. However, as issues fade into the background or positions on issues are
confronted with the realities of daily life or with a better understanding of the implications of support
for the president for basic values, opinions that were altered in response to presidential leadership may
quickly be forgotten. This slippage is especially likely to occur in foreign policy, the area in which the
president's influence on public opinion may be greatest.
The American public is unaware the US foreign policy budget and how it functions
Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 12
[Zbigniew, Press Freedom, “Ignorance of international affairs: It’s a major problem for America”,
http://worldjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/ignorance-of-international-affairs-its-a-major-problemfor-america/, accessed: 7/10/13, ML]
The United States is still the 500-pound gorilla when it comes to foreign affairs. Yet the American
people are woefully (and some seem blissfully) ignorant of the rest of the world.
“American exceptionalism” is not a foreign policy. The rest of the world is catching up economically.
That does not mean the USA is declining in absolute terms, rather it means we are getting more peers
in the world instead of clients. It also means that simplistic soundbites (and the acceptance of those
soundbites without a critical eye) about throwing American military weight around is dangerous.
While most people think the share of the U.S. non-military foreign affairs budget is anywhere from 15-27
percent of the U.S. budget; and these same people think 10 percent is “just about right,” the real number
is closer to 1 percent. And that covers all development aid and the operation expenses of the
TOTAL State Department, including salaries and the costs of running embassies and consulates around
the world. (Oh, and Defense is about 15 percent.)
Efforts to cut the international affairs budgets are really more a means to withdraw peaceful way to
help people and solve international problems. Once that is done all is left is either isolationism or
regular use of the military. And to be honest, isolationism doesn’t work in a global economy and I would
rather spend money than blood to solve problems.
But why is the international affairs budget such an easy target?
Bottom line: There is no constituency for it.
Most of the American people are ignorant of not only the foreign affairs budget but also of the rest
of the world. And the American media don’t help much by limiting its coverage of global events and
by not providing context to most of the stories that are published/aired.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 254
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
American culture breeds ignorance in terms of foreign policy awareness
Griffen, Cambridge Chronicle Reporter, 12
[Richard, 2/25/12, Cambridge Chronicle “Americans ignorance of foreign politics hurts U.S. foreign
policy”, http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1353889296/Griffin-Americans-ignorance-offoreign-politics-hurts-U-S-foreign-policy, accessed” 7/10/13, ML]
Now in his 80s, Brzezinski shows himself articulate and dignified as he evaluates our international
situation.
His new book, “Strategic Vision,” gives a detailed picture of his current worldview. But the PBS
interview covers much ground in a short time.
One conviction of Brzezinski made a special impact on me, and made me wish to draw readers’ attention
to it.
Brzezinski characterizes the American public’s understanding of world affairs as “abysmal.” We
are probably the least informed country in the world, he says.
And one of the main reasons why this hurts us is this: “We can only conduct a foreign policy that the
public supports.”
It saddens me to find Brzezinski’s charge quite correct. We all know people who know little or nothing
beyond our borders. Nor do these same citizens much care.
Pop culture has created an alternate reality in our country. Widespread rejection of newspapers,
especially among young people, condemns many among us to ignorance, despite the information riches of
the Internet.
Though our country still plays a major role in the world, the time is coming, Brzezinski says, when that
will change. Already, we “can no longer dictate to the world, or be the determining player of
everything that is important on the global scene.”
Non-crisis foreign policy issues fade from public attention quickly—too complex
and long term to capture interest
Knecht, University of Denver professor, and Weatherford, UC Santa Barbara
professor, 6
(T. Knecht and ¶ M. S. Weatherford, International Studies Quarterly (2006) 50, ¶ “Public Opinion and
Foreign Policy: The¶ Stages of Presidential Decision Making,” p. 710,
http://clas.georgetown.edu/files/Knecht%20and%20Weatherford%20Public%20Opinion%20and%20Fore
ign%20Policy.pdf, Accessed 7/10/13, JC)
While research on noncrisis cases is limited, we note that these issues share traits¶ with typical domestic
politics issues, and we hypothesize that the public’s attentiveness to noncrisis foreign policy issues will
trace an ‘‘issue attention cycle.’’ Unlike¶ crises that are high in human drama and capable of
holding the public’s attention,¶ noncrisis issues develop over a long time, typically involve complex
substantive¶ trade offs, and entail lengthy coalition building before a solution is reached.¶ Downs’s
(1972; cf. Vasquez and Mansbach 1983; Vasquez 1985; Bosso 1989) study¶ of environmental politics
shows that the pattern of attention to such issues follows a¶ stylized cycle, in which the public
exhibits ‘‘alarmed discovery’’ at the introduction¶ of a new issue, resulting in a high level of attention
and public demands for government to ‘‘do something’’ about the problem. Peak attentiveness is not
sustained¶ long, however, as the public becomes disillusioned or bored with the problem, and¶
concern focuses elsewhere. As Downs writes,
American public attention rarely remains sharply focused upon any one domestic¶ issue for very
longFeven if it involves a continuing problem of crucial importance to society. Instead, a systematic
‘‘issue-attention cycle’’ seems strongly to¶ influence public attitudes and behavior concerning most key
domestic problems.¶ Each of these problems suddenly leaps into prominence, remains there for a¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 255
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
short time, and then—though still largely unresolved—gradually fades from the¶ center of public
attention (Downs 1972:38).
The majority of the public is ignorant of foreign policy – studies prove
Houghton, UCF Forum, Columnist 5-8-13
[David Houghton, 5-08-13, University of Central Florida Forum, “U.S. Foreign Policy Can be Only as
Good as Public's Understanding of World Affairs”, http://today.ucf.edu/u-s-foreign-policy-can-be-onlyas-good-as-publics-understanding-of-world-affairs/, accessed, 7-10-13 AMS]
Poll after poll shows that most Americans are woefully ignorant about foreign policy and the rest of
the world.
In a 2006 Roper poll, only 37 percent of young Americans could place Iraq on a map – just three
years after we invaded that country. An astonishing 88 percent couldn’t place Afghanistan, four
years into that war that is still ongoing.
In 2003, 53 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11,
according to a CBS/New York Times poll, and according to Newsweek – which administered an official
citizenship test in 2011 to ”natural born” citizens – an astonishing 73 percent of Americans could not
identify Communism as America’s main concern during the Cold War. And perhaps most surprisingly,
according to a 2011 Marist poll, nearly 25 percent of Americans don’t know that the United States
declared its independence from England.
Public ignorance has potentially very grave consequences for American foreign policy.
Should we be invading places that many Americans cannot even pinpoint on a map? Should we be
allowing our presidents to wage foreign wars without our knowledge?
In 1964, the issue of Vietnam was hardly mentioned during the presidential election campaign, except
that Lyndon Johnson claimed he would never send “American boys” over to Vietnam. But the following
year – and largely in secrecy – the Johnson administration began a slow-motion escalation of the war. It
would ultimately cost 58,000 Americans, and probably millions of Vietnamese, their lives.
In the 1980s the Reagan administration waged a secret war against the government of Nicaragua, hidden
from Congress and the American people. And we may need only look at recent drone attacks in Yemen,
Pakistan and Afghanistan to surmise that the same thing is happening again now. In one unexplained
attack in 2011, which has never been completely explained, a U.S. drone in Yemen attacked and killed a
U.S.-born teenager, Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who had not been accused of anything but his father
was the inciter of hatred against Americans via the internet.
Some advocate an elitist approach to American foreign policy. The 18th century British Member of
Parliament Edmund Burke articulated this approach to political leadership, arguing that elected officials
must employ their own judgment and experience to determine what policy is best for the country.
Some question whether our leaders know best. Hardly anybody was clamoring for war with Iraq until
President George W. Bush made weapons of mass destruction a justification for it. In the
subsequent war, 4,000 Americans and probably well over 100,000 Iraqis lost their lives.
In a democracy, elected officials are supposed to be the delegates of the people. And here lies the
significance of popular ignorance of American foreign policy: it makes a delegate-style approach
harder, since an electorate that doesn’t inform itself about the issues cannot possibly hope to guide what
leaders do, and cannot hope to prevent the kind of blunders with which some American foreign policy has
been littered.
The answer, in a word, is education. This is why I teach American foreign policy.
As Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor for President Carter, said: “We are a
democracy. We can only have as good a foreign policy as the public’s understanding of world affairs.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 256
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
When it comes to the big things, ordinary Americans usually have it about right. They may not be
highly informed about geography or history or strategy, but their support for key facets of
American foreign policy has been fairly stable over time.
Survey trends show solid and stable support for U.S. international involvement and participation, for
instance, and the general public usually offers mostly reasoned responses to foreign policy problems, at
least after the fact. And when we take the time to inform ourselves about what is happening, we
usually react logically to situations such as unsuccessful wars.
In Plato’s The Republic – centuries later a model for many of the ideas of the radical Iranian cleric
Ayatollah Khomeini – the Greek philosopher presented a stark, anti-democratic vision of the world in
which only the ”learned” and the knowledgeable were permitted to rule. The rest of us were assumed to
live in the darkness of ”the cave.” An uninformed mass public truly empowers the Platonists of American
foreign policy – those such as diplomat George Kennan, political scientist Gabriel Almond and journalist
Walter Lippmann, all of whom believed that top decision-makers should be left alone to make foreign
policy as they see fit, without the checks and balances of ”the herd.”
But that kind of thinking brought us the Bay of Pigs. It brought us Watergate. It brought us
Vietnam and Iraq, before public opinion turned against what policymakers were doing. And today
they are waging wars without our knowledge for which our children may one day pay the price.
The less we know, the more we place American foreign policy in the hands of those who want to
make foreign policy without troubling themselves with our input or burdening themselves with the
terrible costs of war.
Unless it has a substantial impact on their life, the general public will not pay
attention to foreign policy
Davidson 4-6-13
[Lawrence Davidson, 4-06-13, “The Whys of American Ignorance”,
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/06/the-whys-of-american-ignorance/, accessed, 7-10-13 AMS]
In 2008, Rick Shenkman, the Editor-in-Chief of the History News Network, published a book entitled
Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter. In it he demonstrated,
among other things, that most Americans were: (1) ignorant about major international events, (2)
knew little about how their own government runs and who runs it, (3) were nonetheless willing to
accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought
suggested they were bad for the country, and (4) were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic
solutions, irrational fears and public relations babble.
Shenkman spent 256 pages documenting these claims, using a great number of polls and surveys from
very reputable sources. Indeed, in the end it is hard to argue with his data. So, what can we say about this?
One thing that can be said is that this is not an abnormal state of affairs. As has been suggested in
prior analyses, ignorance of non-local affairs (often leading to inaccurate assumptions, passive
acceptance of authority, and illogical actions) is, in fact, a default position for any population.
To put it another way, the majority of any population will pay little or no attention to news stories or
government actions that do not appear to impact their lives or the lives of close associates. If
something non-local happens that is brought to their attention by the media, they will passively
accept government explanations and simplistic solutions.
The primary issue is “does it impact my life?” If it does, people will pay attention. If it appears not
to, they won’t pay attention. For instance, in Shenkman’s book unfavorable comparisons are sometimes
made between Americans and Europeans. Americans often are said to be much more ignorant about
world geography than are Europeans.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 257
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Americans don’t care about foreign affairs – domestic issues take precedent
Hoge, editor for Foreign Affairs, 10
[Jim, 7-12-10, Foreign Affairs, “Why Americans Don’t Care about Foreign Policy”,
http://bigthink.com/videos/why-americans-dont-care-about-foreign-policy, accessed 7-10-13, HG]
The reasons why the American public over a long span of time, 100, 150, 200 years has been mostly
disinterested or at least only casually interested in what is going on in the rest of the world is that
we were developing a whole continent here. We had our own major mission, which was manifest
destiny to the other coast. We had two huge oceans on either side of us and up to our north we had a
very benign neighbor and to our south while there are immigration problems and so on from a
national security point of view that has been very benign, so there were far fewer reasons why we
would be engaged than if you lived in a smaller country in Europe where they were always in
conflict over one thing or another for hundreds and hundreds of years. 9/11 did indeed change this
because it is the first time since the War of 1812 that the United States actually had foreign hostile
activity within its own borders and what 9/11 did among many other things is to suddenly make the
American public aware that in the modern world of globalization both of security weaponry as well as
economics and culture was no longer sort of invulnerable to the plights and the conflicts and the tensions
and the angers elsewhere in the world, that those oceans, those two benign north and south borders were
only now a smaller part of the story, so that did indeed create a greater interest, but primarily the
American public’s interests in foreign affairs waxes and wanes dependent on how much they think a crisis
is about to affect us at home.
During the Cold War years, the 50 years or so of the Cold War the atomic… the bulletin of the atomic
science used to have a clock and they would show the secondhand getting or the firsthand getting closer
and closer to midnight whenever the Soviet Union United States got into a first class clash, the biggest
one being of course over Cuba. Every time that happened the interest in international affairs zoomed
to the top. As soon as things calmed down again it disappeared again and they worried about local
problems and so on. The same thing to a certain extent has happened since 9/11. There is not the same
level of acute interest now that there was then, but globalization has also meant there are other reasons to
be interested in what is going on in the world besides the security question. There is the prosperity of
the country, which now is dependent on a highly internationalized economic system, so I think
we’re better off than we were and when polls are taken for key things like do you think the UN is a
necessary institution and set of processes, the answer invariably is yes. It’s a reluctant answer. They
wish it wasn’t so. They’re not enthusiastic and they know all the problems of the UN, but they don’t take
an isolationist position that we would be better off without it. Some politicians from usually the extremes
of one party or another still try to sell the idea that a fortress America would work, just have a strong
military, a strong economy, stay out of everybody else’s business and we’ll be okay. That is not an
opinion that anymore captures a large public. They don’t believe it is realistic. They don’t believe that
you can have a prosperous America, a safe America just by staying within some sort of continental
fortress so to speak.
Americans are not concerned with international affairs
Sledge, Huffington Post, 12
[Matt, 9-17-12, Huffington Post, “Mitt Romney On Foreign Policy: Americans Don't Care About China,
Russia, Iran,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-foreign-policy_n_1891481.html,
accessed 7-10-13, MSG]
But in a closed-door fundraiser with donors that occurred at least three weeks ago, Romney apparently
conceded that Americans "are not concentrated at all" on international hot spots like China,
Russia, and Iran.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 258
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Based on public opinion polls, Romney may have been spot-on in his private moment of candor: Voters
say they are far less concerned about international affairs than bread-and-butter economic issues.
That has held true even after the American ambassador to Libya was killed in a violent attack last
week.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 259
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Foreign Policy – No Perception
Public doesn’t perceive foreign policy—overly complex system with no perceived
impact on individuals’ lives
Davidson, West Chester University history professor, 9
(Lawrence, 1/9/2009, Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest, p. 23-24, Google
Books, Accessed 7/10/13, JC)
The problem of public ignorance of and disinterest in the world abroad is compounded by the
average citizen’s general political apathy. Just as many people are not interested in foreign affairs,
many are not, beyond their regional sphere, seriously interested in domestic political affairs either.
The further away people go from their home base, the more they feel an ultimate indifference toward
political events. This observation is most relevant when times are settled and no collective problems
transcending the local are evident. On the other hand, it is certainly true that some people like to discuss
politics on a broader level, but such conversations usually end with the shaking of the head or the
shrugging of the shoulders. There is a pervasive feeling that one can do about as much about
nonlocal politics as one can do about the weather. Thus, the citizens of New Hampshire will show very
little interest in a California gubernatorial election (unless one of the candidates is a famous movie star).
And, when it comes to national elections, there is an undeniable problem of a pervasive political apathy
and alienation reducing the number of citizens who bother to vote. As a consequence, the United States
ranks 139th out of 172 democratic countries in voter turnout.1 This posture of nonparticipation in
politics—what Michael Caprini and Scott Keeter call "thin democracy's—only further confirms citizens
in their localism. This ubiquitous public orientation means that one must be careful not to exaggerate
the meaning of polls purporting to tell us what people think about politics or¶ foreign policy, even
when those polls are conducted with statistical sophistication. There is a difference between
answering questions relatively honestly over the phone and believing that the subject matter is
important enough to affect one's daily life.
Once more, feelings of political indifference and alienation are not unusual in a country with a large
and complex political system with little or no room for votes of no confidence, third parties, and
doable recall efforts. To influence and take advantage of the structures of power, one must be
motivated to master the bureaucratic maze and myriad rules of the system. And few are so
motivated. As a result, the United States is not primarily a democracy of individuals.
No perception of US foreign policy means the government can do whatever they
want
Raimondo, Antiwar.com editorial director, 13
[Justin, 1/28/13, Anti-War, “America’s Foreign Policy: Why Should You Care?”,
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/01/27/americas-foreign-policy-why-should-you-care/, accessed:
7/10/13, ML]
Every once in a while it’s worth it to recall just why we’re doing this: that is, why we here at
Antiwar.com spend our days reporting on events in obscure countries no normal person has ever heard of,
tracking the pronouncements of politicians and foreign policy wonks, and exposing the War Party’s latest
schemes.
It is, frankly, a thankless and exhausting task, and the problem is that one often loses sight of the forest
for the trees. Our days are spent asking and trying to answer questions such as: How long will the French
linger in Mali? Will Chuck Hagel be confirmed? Is the CIA secretly supporting rebels in Syria? Will the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 260
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Magnitsky Act lead to a new cold war with Russia? What often gets lost is the answer to the question:
Why should we care?
Americans, being a naturally "isolationist" lot, tend to ignore events overseas unless there is some
immediate and tangible impact on their everyday lives – and not even wars in which we are involved
necessarily qualify. It took years of occupying Iraq before the American people noticed we had been
lied into that costly war, and over a decade before anybody began asking what we thought we were doing
in Afghanistan.
This means that our political class, left to their own devices, has pretty much of a free rein when it
comes to meddling in the affairs of other countries – not because Americans approve of such activities,
but because they generally are unaware it’s even happening. Once they do become aware it’s usually
too late to do much about it, because the very fact that’s it’s come up on their radar means it’s already
backfired.
People don’t perceive foreign policy
Drezner, Tufts international politics professor, 12
[Daniel, 9/20/13, NYT, “Why Presidents Love Foreign Affairs”,
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/why-presidents-love-foreign-affairs/, accessed:
7/10/13, ML]
I was being generous with the “5 percent” appellation. Poll after poll shows that when Americans are
asked what they consider the most important issue in presidential campaigns, an overwhelming
majority choose the economy. Answers related to foreign policy or national security typically yield
between 3 and 5 percent.
Many pollsters don’t even bother asking about international issues because it seems manifestly obvious
that they’re not terribly important. When pollsters prod Americans about their foreign policy views, the
results are clear: they want the government to focus less on the rest of the world.
Politicians are not blind to these numbers. Short of a war or other violent attacks on American
installations, foreign policy rarely takes center stage during presidential elections. Presidential
candidates almost always campaign on how they intend to jump-start the economy.
It must be maddening to voters, then, that about a year or two after they are elected, presidents seem to
devote an ever increasing amount of time to the rest of the world. The Balkans appeared to consume the
Clinton administration. George W. Bush launched two wars during his tenure. Barack Obama has devoted
a considerable amount of his time to revamping counterterrorism policies, rebalancing attention to the
Pacific Rim, prosecuting a war in Libya — and killing Osama bin Laden.
As the September 11th attacks demonstrate, most of the time presidents don’t pick the foreign policy
issues they want to tackle – the issues choose them.Reuters As the September 11th attacks demonstrate,
most of the time presidents don’t pick the foreign policy issues they want to tackle – the issues choose
them.
Why do presidents campaign as economic wizards but govern as foreign policy leaders? The first thing to
realize is that presidents are not doing this on purpose. Their focus on foreign policy actually reveals
the constraints on the modern American presidency.
On most big economic matters, presidents cannot act alone. Congress has to approve things like
budgets and taxes, and in case you haven’t noticed, Congress has become increasingly sclerotic. During
the 1950s, for example, Congress passed an average of 800 laws per session; in the post-cold-war era, that
figure has declined to fewer than 400. Based on the 112th Congress, that figure will continue to decline in
the future.
The party not in the White House has been increasingly obstructionist — and if you doubt this, look up
the filibuster statistics. Any president trying to accomplish something with Congressional approval either
needs a majority of the House and 60 votes in the Senate, or needs to compromise with an opposition
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 261
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
party ever further away on the ideological spectrum. Short of a landslide, presidents have a brief
honeymoon period in which to push major domestic policy initiatives through Congress.
If presidents seem to be ever more constrained in their domestic policy making, in foreign affairs the
executive branch has far more leeway. Sure, Congress has to approve treaties and budgets, but they are
reluctant to challenge the executive branch on most national security matters. The Bush administration
was able to implement the Iraq surge despite skeptical majorities in both houses of Congress. The Obama
administration authorized the use of force in Libya without even notifying Congress. Neither policy
was terribly popular with the American people, yet both presidents were able to do what they wanted.
Indeed, invoking national security seems to eliminate a disturbing number of institutional impediments
for the executive branch. The National Security Agency can admit that it violated the Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition of illegal search and seizure without much in the way of political or legal
blowback.
Of course, all of this presumes that presidents can control the international environment. This is an utter
fantasy. As the 9/11 attacks made clear, small groups of actors can be responsible for large conflagrations.
The pretext for the recent attacks on American embassies and consulates across the Middle East was a
cartoonish YouTube video. If that is the bar for inciting action against American interests, then any
intelligence agency would drown in possible provocations. Most of the time presidents don’t pick the
foreign policy issues they want to tackle — the issues choose them.
America remains the world’s pre-eminent power. This means that whenever something happens
somewhere in the world, the expectation is that the United States will be part of the policy solution. When
presidents are reluctant to intervene, they are attacked by domestic and foreign adversaries as being weak,
passive or “leading from behind.”
It’s precisely because presidents have so much more leeway to do what they want in the global
realm that I now vote based on foreign policy. Mistakes in international affairs can lead to
incalculable losses in blood and treasure. Paradoxically, if Americans suddenly started to vote based on
national security issues, presidents would have to start to care about the domestic political consequences
of their overseas actions.
Studies suggest the public doesn’t perceive foreign policy,
Morss, global finance expert, 5-26-13
[Elliott R. Morss, For several years, he worked in the Fiscal Affairs Department of the International
Monetary Fund. He later helped establish Development Alternatives, Inc. (dai.com), a firm that became
the largest contractor to the U.S. foreign assistance program (AID). Since his first IMF assignment in
Ghana in 1966, he has worked in 45 countries. He has been the President of the Asia-Pacific Group, a
British Virgin Islands for profit company with investments in Cambodia, China, and Myanmar. With Dr.
Zhu Jia-Ming, he established Green China, an American NGO with the mission to increase the dialogue
in China on the trade-offs between economic growth and environmental preservation, 5-25-13, “Are
Americans Apathetic and Ignorant? What Surveys Tell Us”, http://www.morssglobalfinance.com/areamericans-apathetic-and-ignorant-what-surveys-tell-us/, accessed, 7-10-13 AMS]
Introduction
For more than a year, I have been documenting that special interests groups rather than the will of
the people determine what the US does domestically and internationally. It does not matter whether it
is health policy, bank reform, global warming/energy policy, or where/when the US launches the next
war: special interests end up deciding what is done. But there is another important issue: Elected officials
are supposed to represent the “will of the people; Question: Do Americans’ have a “will” or are they
ignorant/apathetic about government actions? Sadly, there is much evidence supporting the
ignorance/apathy hypothesis. The evidence is presented below.
US Foreign Policy
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 262
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Gabriel Almond[1] and others have documented that most Americans have little idea of what is
happening in the rest of the world or US foreign policy and. A study was made of how US citizens’
knowledge of what is happening in other countries compares with other nations[2]. The conclusion:
Germans are most informed followed by Britain, Canada, and France. Americans had the least
knowledge. To work effectively, democracies require an informed public.
A recent poll found that large US minorities continue to believe that Iraq was providing support to
al Qaeda and that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program or actual WMDs.
Before the war, 26% of Americans believed Iraq either had actual WMDs or had a major program
to produce them (21%). After the US went in, 16% of Americans said they were found in Iraq. 46%
thought Iraq gave al Qaeda substantial support (31%) or thought it was directly involved in 9/11
(15%).
When it comes to US foreign policy, the evidence is clear: Americans know very little. That means
they will go along with what special interest groups tell political leaders to do.
The publics knowledge of foreign policy is structurally declining, and is easily
subject to misinformation
Forbis, 5-9-13
[Meaghan Forbis, 5-9-13, St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review, “How Much Don’t You Know? The
Epidemic of American Ignorance”, http://foreignaffairsreview.co.uk/2013/05/american-ignoranc/,
accessed, 7-10-13 AMS]
The Boston Marathon Bombings, on the 15th of April, sparked a vicious manhunt that ended in the
capture of one young Chechen and the killing of his brother. Across the Internet, people speculated
wildly about the identity of the bombers, casting wild accusations against various minority groups and
falsely identifying several suspects from photos of the scene. One young man, 22- year- old Sunil
Tripathi, was found dead the week after web vigilantes singled him out as the bomber. But even once the
identity of the genuine perpetrators was released, many Americans were still mired in misinformation.
Matt Binder, on his blog, Public Shaming: Tweets of Privilege, compiled a collection of screenshots from
Twitter and Facebook, where Americans both young and old demanded retribution against the
Czechoslovakians for the Boston Bombings. However, as any rational, intelligent person will tell you,
the bombers were not from Czechoslovakia. Nor, in fact, were they from the Czech Republic. A
Chechen is someone from Chechnya, a region in southwest Russia. While this delightful little mix-up
may seem like the mere blundering of some Wi-Fi-enabled buffoons, the confusion was actually
serious enough to warrant a statement from Petr Gandalovic, the Czech Ambassador to the United
States. When American public ignorance reaches the point where a foreign ambassador feels the
need to intervene, something’s got to give.
The Pew Research Center, in the latest update of its semi-annual News IQ study, discovered that only
7% of the people surveyed could correctly answer all 13 questions posed. The questions, on various
topics, covered both domestic and foreign affairs. Only half of the subjects, Americans ranging from
age 18 on, with varying degrees of education, could identify Syria on a map of the Middle East. A full
43% could not pick the flag of the People’s Republic of China out of a lineup. A third didn’t
recognize the euro symbol. Only two-thirds of the people asked could identify the current Secretary
of State, John Kerry. In a world where the United States remains unequivocally the reigning world
power, how can her citizens remain so blatantly ignorant? According to an earlier, more
comprehensive study by the Pew Research Center, American news literacy has maintained a constant
decline since 1989. With the advent of the 24- hour news cycle and the onset of mass social media, you
would expect Americans to be more informed about their world. Unfortunately, you can’t give a bear
a fishing rod and expect him to use it to catch a fish.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 263
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Even when people do make the effort to inform themselves, they often neglect to think critically
about the information they’re being deluged with. Misinformation is a constant problem within both
social media and professional news making. Fact-checking is often shunted aside to make room for more
exciting spins. The two Chechen bombers, who were literally from the Caucasus, were identified over and
over as non-Caucasian, due in part to them being Muslim. Americans would rather see two brownskinned boys as villains than two white ones. Even though the FBI stated in their official press release
that their suspects were white, the media and the public determinedly pictured the brothers as
otherwise. Perhaps because Americans are so comfortable characterizing terrorists as dark-skinned,
turban-wearing men from the Middle East, that thinking of the bombers as identical to themselves was
just a step too far. It’s difficult to change your mental image of something, difficult to realign your
worldview. In his 2008 article for the Washington Post, Shankar Vendantam said, “misinformation can
exercise a ghostly influence on people’s minds after it has been debunked— even among people who
recognize it as misinformation.” Because Americans find it easier to accept the information given
them than to look critically at their own world, it is difficult for truth to invade the national
consciousness.
So what, though? Americans are stupid, everyone knows that. It’s a stereotype not many have
actively tried to debunk. But here’s the rub: the American people who can’t think for themselves,
who are reticent to immerse themselves in current affairs, who can’t tell Chechnya from Czechoslovakia,
that’s the same American people who, every four years, elect the leader of the free world. That’s the same
American people who peacefully overthrow their own government on a regular basis. It’s the same
American people who control both the world’s largest economy and the world’s most powerful
military. Do you want the most powerful country in the world to be run by mass ignorance?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 264
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Venezuela
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 265
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Link Non-Unique
Obama has already engaged with Venezuela with no fight
Sullivan, Congressional Research Service Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 13
[Mark P., January 10th 2013, Congressional Research Service, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, p. iv, Accessed 7/6/13, CB]
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign ¶
oil, but there has been friction in relations under the Chávez government. Over the years, U.S. ¶ officials
have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases, its ¶ relations with
Iran, and its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American ¶ countries. Declining
cooperation on anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts has been a major concern. ¶ The United States has
imposed sanctions: on several Venezuelan government and military ¶ officials for allegedly helping
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with drug ¶ and weapons trafficking; on
three Venezuelan companies for providing support to Iran; and on ¶ several Venezuelan individuals
for providing support to Hezbollah. Despite tensions in relations, ¶ the Obama Administration
remains committed to seeking constructive engagement with ¶ Venezuela , focusing on such areas
as anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts. In the aftermath of ¶ President Chávez’s reelection, the
White House, while acknowledging differences with President ¶ Chávez, congratulated the Venezuelan
people on the high level of participation and the relatively ¶ peaceful election process
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 266
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Spin
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 267
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Mandate Wins
Presidential mandate rhetoric has the power to decide Congressional action –
empirically true through American presidential history
Villalabos et al., University of Texas at El Paso Political Science Assistant Professor,
12
[José D., Justin S. Vaughn, Boise State University Assistant Professor of Political Science, Julia R. Arazi,
Marquette University Assistant Professor of Political Science, September 2012, “Politics or Policy? How
Rhetoric Matters to Presidential Leadership of Congress,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 3, Center
for the Study of the Presidency, p. 553-4, Proquest, accessed 7-8-13, UR]
The first category of appeals, mandate rhetoric, concerns the president’s rhetorical embrace of
electoral logic. This type of message is in some ways the inverse of the going public model put forward
by Kernell (1986). That is, rather than going to the public to sell a message in order to coerce reluctant
members of Congress into voting for the president’s preferred policy initiative, this type of appeal
grounds the president’s pref- erence in the logic of a presumptive mandate. Presidential capacity to
invoke an issue- based mandate in the context of a policy debate has historical origins in the rhetoric of
Andrew Jackson, who suggested that the 1832 election had conferred a mandate for the elimination
of the Second Bank of the United States (Ellis and Kirk 1995). Scholars also refer to the idea of a
presidential mandate, conferred through the president’s election victory as well as the success of the
president’s party, as a component of constitutional changes (e.g., Landy and Milkis 2000). The
relationship between issue-based mandates and presidential policy success informs several modern-era
case studies as well. Ackerman (1998, 267) attributes Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) ability to
effect a “constitu- tional moment” to the “triggering election” of 1936 and suggests a parallel with
the Civil War era. Historical accounts of Lyndon Johnson’s ambitious (and largely successful) policy
proposals after the 1964 election emphasize the role of mandates in producing legislative victories
(Conkin 1986; Goodwin 1976). Finally, Ronald Reagan’s policy success has been linked to the
construction of a mandate for conservative policies (Grossback, Peterson, and Stimson 2006; Jones
2005).
In recent years, political scientists have brought increasingly sophisticated analyti- cal techniques to
the study of how and why mandates impact the political system. For example, Conley (2001) argues
that presidential mandate claims, when made by presi- dents with a genuine claim to an issue-based
electoral mandate, have the potential to be effective in winning interbranch conflicts over policy.
Conley highlights the success of these claims for several modern presidents, including Dwight
Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan. Using formal models as well as case studies,
Conley’s rational choice contribution suggests that mandate claims serve as a useful communica- tion
strategy under two conditions: when the president has won a majority of votes and when a policy
issue was the driving factor behind the election results. However, other scholars define the mandate
and its credibility differently. Grossback, Peterson, and Stimson (2005, 2006), for instance, find that
Congress responds more readily to signals in the electorate about a mandate than to presidential claims.
Elsewhere, upon examining presidential mandate claims from 1929 through 2005, Azari (2007) finds that
mandate claims are frequently, though not exclusively, used in association with presidential proposals that
do not succeed, such as FDR’s court-packing plan, Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal, and George
W. Bush’s Social Security reform proposal.5 Clearly, the empirical evidence concerning mandate politics
is mixed, allowing only the most tenta- tive and cautious conclusions that presidential mandate rhetoric
matters to congressional policy action. For our purposes, we follow the general logic that when
presidents incorporate public preferences into their arguments for their policy proposals, it should
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 268
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
increase the likelihood of congressional support for such policies. Accordingly, we hypothesize the
following:
H1: As presidential references to a mandate increase, Presidential success in Congress will increase.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 269
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Expertise Wins
Engagement with in-field experts over policymaking reduces skepticism among
legislators and magnifies the power of political capital
Villalabos et al., University of Texas at El Paso Political Science Professor, 12
[José D., Justin S. Vaughn, Boise State University Assistant Professor of Political Science, Julia R. Arazi,
Marquette University Assistant Professor of Political Science, September 2012, “Politics or Policy? How
Rhetoric Matters to Presidential Leadership of Congress,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 3, Center
for the Study of the Presidency, p. 556-7, Proquest, accessed 7-8-13, UR]
Finally, the fourth category of presidential policy proposal messages concerns not neces- sarily the way
the president sells an initiative, but rather the substantive quality of the legislative proposal being put
forward. Presidents can earn greater policy credibility when they seek an enhanced level of
involvement by policy experts, particularly those involved in the administration and implementation
of existing law. By putting forward policy initiatives developed using the input of experts, such as
key agency officials, presidents are also communicating to members of Congress about both the
quality of the proposal and the degree to which the president has delegated the policy-crafting task
not to his political subordinates, but rather to bureaucratic experts who are more neutral and policy
competent.
In accordance with the recent work by Villalobos (2008, forthcoming), we posit that agency input
provides presidential policy development with expertise and objectiv- ity, process transparency,
cooperative consultation with Congress, and agency support, which should markedly increase presidential
policy-making success in Congress. The involvement of agency actors in the policy development phase
provides presidents with a degree of bureaucratic expertise9 that is more objective than the advice of the
president’s inner circle and that legislators—particularly partisan opponents of the president—are
therefore relatively less likely to oppose (Villalobos 2008, forthcoming).10 Agency actors are generally
more objective than White House staffers because they are less likely to view policy options primarily
through an ideological lens and instead base much of their preferences on bureaucratic expertise
accumulated from years of policy learning and institutional memory, which provides them with an
authoritative knowledge of govern- ment procedures and folkways (Weko 1995; Wolf 1999).
Agency involvement at the policy development stage also allows members of Congress to more
openly observe and take part in the policy-making process, which helps legitimize policy initiatives
in the eyes of legislators prior to their proposal. According to Rudalevige (2002, 150), “Members of
Congress know less about an item being crafted in the White House than they do about a departmental
production, and have less reason to believe that the information they do receive from EOP [Executive
Office of the President] sources is reliable.” Given that congressional committees often hold hearings
to ascertain whether a policy initiative represents a valid policy solution, presidential policy
proposals with agency support are therefore less likely to generate skepticism among legislators.
Consequently, by attaining the input of agency actors, the president thus signals to members of Congress
that a given policy proposal has endured the scrutiny as well as earned the support of the very people
responsible for its eventual implementation.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 270
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Internal Link Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 271
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 272
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win & No Internal Link
Political capital arguments are flawed – other variables – winners win more likely
Hirsh, National Journal chief correspondent, 13
[Michael, 2-9-13, National Journal, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital,"
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207, accessed 7-913]
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this
time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun
control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do
what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are,
discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses
to push his program through.
Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years.
Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously
about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and
gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4
percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy
and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly
polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited
executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work
without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a
Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less
popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do
with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political
capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen.
What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20
first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little
girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden
tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National
Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The progun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and
walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave
riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.”
As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most
dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say
now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic
changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very
little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a
new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which
the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal
immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with
Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just
two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of
the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 273
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won
by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out
of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such
as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party
may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that
white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or,
indeed, Obama at all.
The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or
“momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has
tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was
elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still
defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,”
says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say
he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity
and some momentum on your side.”
The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly
defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says
George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—
some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964,
maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far
more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do
about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can
suddenly change everything . Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete
amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a
particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any
given moment in history.
Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both
chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And
unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him
more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be
able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that
make him (and the Democrats) stronger.
But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in
mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudoconcept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You
just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago,
“Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular
issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on
his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as
when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic
vote.
Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful
presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the
academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing,
like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says
Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the
calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the
calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue
comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and
[they]he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 274
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a
bandwagon effect.”
Issues are compartmentalized
Dickinson, Middlebury College professor of political science, 9
(Matthew, former instructor at Harvard University under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard
Neustadt, 5/26/09, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor,
Obama and Presidential Power,” http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayorobama-and-presidential-power/, Accessed 7/9/13)
As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate
Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written
depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress
adjourns for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start
of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process
below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of
presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous
means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these,
but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many
times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is
approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually
pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is
a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading
gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how
members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president
does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to
gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation
enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control
for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of
her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote
without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the
importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated
instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative
outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence.
Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to
determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an
exercise in agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a
major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the
confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate
debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will
have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real
influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee. If we want to
measure Obama’s “power”, then, we need to know what his real preference was and why he chose
Sotomayor. My guess – and it is only a guess – is that after conferring with leading Democrats and
Republicans, he recognized the overriding practical political advantages accruing from choosing an
Hispanic woman, with left-leaning credentials. We cannot know if this would have been his ideal choice
based on judicial philosophy alone, but presidents are never free to act on their ideal preferences. Politics
is the art of the possible. Whether Sotomayer is his first choice or not, however, her nomination is a
reminder that the power of the presidency often resides in the president’s ability to dictate the alternatives
from which Congress (or in this case the Senate) must choose. Although Republicans will undoubtedly
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 275
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
attack Sotomayor for her judicial “activism” (citing in particular her decisions regarding promotion and
affirmative action), her comments regarding the importance of gender and ethnicity in influencing her
decisions, and her views regarding whether appellate courts “make” policy, they run the risk of alienating
Hispanic voters – an increasingly influential voting bloc (to the extent that one can view Hispanics as a
voting bloc!) I find it very hard to believe she will not be easily confirmed. In structuring the
alternative before the Senate in this manner, then, Obama reveals an important aspect of
presidential power that cannot be measured through legislative boxscores.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 276
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win
Victories increase capital
Lee, Claremont McKenna College 5
(Andrew, “Invest or Spend? Political Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term
of the George W. Bush Presidency,” Georgia Political Science Association Conference Proceedings,
http://a-s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf, accessed 7-9-12 FFF)
To accrue political capital, the president may support a particular lawmaker’s legislation by issuing
an SAP urging support, thereby giving that legislator more pull in the Congress and at home. The
president may also receive capital from Congress by winning larger legislative majorities. For
example, the president’s successful efforts at increasing Republican representation in the Senate and
House would constitute an increase in political capital. The president may also receive political capital
from increased job favorability numbers, following through with purported policy agendas, and
defeating opposing party leaders (Lindberg 2004). Because political capital diminishes, a president
can invest in policy and legislative victories to maintain or increase it. For example, President George
W. Bush invests his political capital in tax cuts which he hopes will yield returns to the economy and his
favorability numbers. By investing political capital, the president assumes a return on investment.
Victory begets more victories – politicians won’t cross a winner
Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute fellow and political analyst, 1
(Norman J., Roll Call, 9-10-1, “High Stakes and an Overloaded Agenda”, Lexis)
Those victories came at a crucial time, psychologically, for the White House. Imagine if the
Democrats' preferred patients' rights legislation had passed by a wide margin in the House (as it has
in the past) and if the President had been rebuffed on drilling in ANWR. He would have spent the
month of August as the target of news stories declaring him weak and on the defensive, and arrived
back in Washington in September with no momentum and limited leverage in the legislative battles
of the fall. Instead, by showing that he can win even when he's expected to lose, and even on highstakes issues, Bush left lawmakers with reason to pause before writing him off when key votes loom.
Winners win – plan is a win for Obama because he overcomes opposition
Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute fellow and political analyst, 1993
(Norman J., Roll Call, “Clinton Can Still Emerge a Winner; Here's What to Do”, May 27, p. Online)
2. Winning comes to those who look like winners. This only sounds redundant or cliche-ish. If power
is the ability to make people do something they otherwise would not do, real power is having people
do things they otherwise wouldn't do without anybody making them - when they act in anticipation
of what they think somebody would want them to do.
If a president develops a reputation as a winner, somebody who will pull out victories in Congress
even when he is behind, somebody who can say, "Do this!" and have it done, then Members of
Congress will behave accordingly.
They will want to cut their deals with the president early, getting on the winning team when it looks
the best and means the most. They will avoid cutting deals with the opposition.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 277
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Stories that show weakness, indecisiveness, or incompetence in the White House - and there are
always lots of them - will go unreported or will be played down because they will be seen as the
exception that proves the rule of strength and competence.
Winners win – empirically proven, and compromises don’t work
Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, 1/19/13
(David, CNN, “Obama 2.0: Smarter – but wiser?”http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergenobama-two/index.html, Accessed 7/9/13)
On the eve of his second inaugural, President Obama appears smarter, tougher and bolder than ever
before. But whether he is also wiser remains a key question for his new term.¶ It is clear that he is
consciously changing his leadership style heading into the next four years. Weeks before the
November elections, his top advisers were signaling that he intended to be a different kind of
president in his second term. "Just watch," they said to me, in effect, "he will win re-election decisively
and then he will throw down the gauntlet to the Republicans , insisting they raise taxes on the wealthy.
Right on the edge of the fiscal cliff, he thinks Republicans will cave." ¶ What's your Plan B, I asked. "We
don't need a Plan B," they answered. "After the president hangs tough -- no more Mr. Nice Guy -the other side will buckle ." Sure enough, Republicans caved on taxes. Encouraged, Obama has since
made clear he won't compromise with Republicans on the debt ceiling, either. Obama 2.0 stepped
up this past week on yet another issue: gun control. No president in two decades has been as forceful
or sweeping in challenging the nation's gun culture. Once again, he portrayed the right as the enemy of
progress and showed no interest in negotiating a package up front. In his coming State of the Union
address, and perhaps in his inaugural, the president will begin a hard push for a comprehensive reform of
our tattered immigration system. Leading GOP leaders on the issue -- Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, for
example -- would prefer a piecemeal approach that is bipartisan. Obama wants to go for broke in a
single package, and on a central issue -- providing a clear path to citizenship for undocumented
residents -- he is uncompromising.¶ After losing out on getting Susan Rice as his next secretary of state,
Obama has also shown a tougher side on personnel appointments. Rice went down after Democratic as
well as Republican senators indicated a preference for Sen. John Kerry. But when Republicans also tried
to kill the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, Obama was unyielding -- an "in-your-face
appointment," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, called it, echoing sentiments held by some of his
colleagues. Republicans would have preferred someone other than Jack Lew at Treasury, but Obama
brushed them off. Hagel and Lew -- both substantial men -- will be confirmed, absent an unexpected
bombshell, and Obama will rack up two more victories over Republicans. Strikingly, Obama has also
been deft in the ways he has drawn upon Vice President Joe Biden. During much of the campaign, Biden
appeared to be kept under wraps. But in the transition, he has been invaluable to Obama in negotiating a
deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the fiscal cliff and in pulling together the gun
package. Biden was also at his most eloquent at the ceremony announcing the gun measures. ¶ All of this
has added up for Obama to one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich
dividends: A CNN poll this past week pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above the doldrums he was
in for much of the past two years. Many of his long-time supporters are rallying behind him . As the
first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50%
of the vote, Obama is in the strongest position since early in his first year.¶ Smarter, tougher, bolder
-- his new style is paying off politically . But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance?
Perhaps -- and for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet, there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.
Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy , the president and
Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term. Over the past two
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 278
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama,
and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections. But a growing
number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to
move away from extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises
with Obama. It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. ¶
House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on the wealthy
and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a
mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a ruinous GOP stance.¶ One senses that the hope,
small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now
slipping away. While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives
increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them . They
don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to
barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a
nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is
winning : At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.¶
Conceivably, Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More
likely, they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a
thread.
Winners win – plan is a legislative victory
Mead, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, 6-20-11
[Walter Russell, Business Insider, “Here's How Obama Can Save His Presidency,”
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-obama-can-save-his-presidency-2011-6, accessed 7-3-11]
Americans are realistic enough to understand that the breakdown of the blue social model is a messy
process and that perhaps no president can deliver a pain free transition to the next stage. But what they
aren’t hearing from President Obama is a compelling description of what has gone wrong, how it can be
fixed, and how the policies he proposes will take us to the next level. What they hear from this
administration are defensive responses: Hooveresque calls for patience mingled with strange-sounding
attacks on ATMs and sharp, opportunistic jabs at former President Bush. The White House has responded
to strategic challenges at home and abroad with tactical maneuvers. Voters sense that we live in historic
times that demand leadership of a different kind. What does President Obama think about the fiscal
squeeze forcing trade-offs between state employee benefits and services to the poor? How much trouble is
the American middle class in — and what changes are needed to save it? The President of the United
States has to own this conversation. His vision, his initiatives must dominate the political scene. His
opponents may fight him and defeat his proposals in Congress — that is not the worst thing that can
happen. Harry Truman did very well running against a ‘do-nothing’ Congress in 1948. At a time of
historic anxiety and tension like the present, the President of the United States cannot be an
administrator, a fence-sitter, a finger-pointer. He must first and foremost stand for something —
and he must be able to make that something resonate with the voters. The President’s job is to lead.
The longer the President fails to dominate the discussion about where this country is going the
more his authority will erode. In the end, a failure to define the problem and outline a convincing
solution will hurt more than what now appears his likely failure to regenerate healthy economic growth by
the next election. He may have only one chance to get this right. A failed attempt to define the problem
and control the discussion would further fuzz the President’s image and reinforce the sense among
many voters that the man is not up to the hour. The Obama Presidency can still be saved, but only
if the President becomes the kind of inspiring and effective leader these tough and uncertain times
demand.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 279
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners win – the bully pulpit outweighs
Kuttner, American Prospect co-founder, 11
(Robert, co-founder and current co-editor of The American Prospect, co-founder and director of
the Economic Policy Institute, and Demos research and policy center Distinguished Senior Fellow;
5/10/11, The American Prospect, “Barack Obama’s Theory of Power,”
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power, Accessed 7/9/13)
Obama’s critics contend that his prolonged fantasy of bipartisanship, his failure to lay the blame for the
depressed economy squarely on the Republicans, and his reluctance to use his bully pulpit to tell a
coherent story, particularly about jobs, needlessly weakened the Democrats and led to avoidable losses in
the 2010 midterm. More fundamentally, under Obama government has lost credibility as a necessary
force for economic recovery and fairness, undermining the Democrats’ core appeal to voters. At the very
least, Obama failed to drive the agenda or exploit the full possibilities of presidential leadership in a
crisis. In the formulation of the political historian James MacGregor Burns, Obama ran and inspired
voters as a “transformational” figure but governed as a “transactional” one. Notwithstanding a vow to
profoundly change Washington, Obama took the Washington power constellation as a given. Despite an
economic emergency, he moved neither Congress nor public opinion very much and only seldom used his
oratorical gifts. “He is so damned smart and confident that he thinks he just has to explain things to the
American people once,” says former House Appropriations Chair David Obey. “He doesn’t appreciate
that you have to reinforce a message 50 times.” Obama’s reticence, his reluctance to lay blame, make
sharp partisan distinctions, or practice a politics of class, reflects the interplay of his personality and his
tacit theory of power—one that emphasizes building bridges to opponents, defying ideological categories,
shying away from the kind of mass mobilization that swept him into office, and practicing a kind of Zen
detachment. At moments in American history, that conception of the presidency has suited the times. This
doesn’t seem to be one of those moments. Yet in the third year of his presidency, there are signs of a
learning curve. It may be that Obama is playing his own elegant brand of rope-a-dope, biding his
time, letting the Republicans lead with their chins, waiting for just the right moment to dramatize their
extremism and exploit their schisms—then demonstrating a toughness that has largely eluded him
until now and reshaping the political center as a more progressive one. The hope of a new, more
combative Obama was kindled by portions of his April 13 speech at George Washington University,
which showed an Obama that we’ve seldom seen during his presidency. “The man America elected
president has re-emerged,” exulted The New York Times’ lead editorial. Obama departed from his usual
reluctance to be partisan, explicitly criticizing the self-annihilating Republican designs so usefully spelled
out in Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed 10-year budget. The president resorted to a formulation he seldom
uses—the injustices of class: “The top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a
quarter of a million dollars each. That’s who needs to pay less taxes?” Obama said. “They want to give
people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health
costs. That’s not right. And it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president.” At last, Obama shifted the
mind-numbing debate from the scale of the budget and its deficits to its content and political meaning. He
did what his progressive critics have long advocated, drawing a clear, bright, partisan line and pledging to
defend Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But the budgetary details of the speech showed an
Obama who was still the transactional leader of the Burns paradigm. Obama devoted most of the speech
to his own plans for cutting the deficit. Jobs and recovery were hardly mentioned. Most of the proposed
deficit reductions came from cuts to programs rather than from tax increases. And Obama was far too
generous with the word, we. As in: But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline
during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for
two wars and an expensive prescription-drug program—but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending.
Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts. [Emphasis added.] As
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 280
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, What do you mean, we? This fiscal deterioration, of course, was the
Republicans’ handiwork. Why not point that out? Obama seemed to come to his partisanship reluctantly,
almost apologetically. At one point in the speech, having just flayed the Republicans for their sheer
extremism, he added, “I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.” He further
mixed his own message by declaring, “We will all need to make sacrifices.” Indeed, the main ideological
themes of the speech had been undermined by Obama’s earlier compromises. The left pole that Obama
defined in the budget debate had already been moved to the right by his yearlong emphasis on deficit
reduction; his prior concessions in the December 2010 tax deal, which failed to restore higher tax rates on
the rich; and the 2011 budget deal, which cut $38 billion in programs. If the bipartisan Gang of Six,
spawn of Obama’s own Bowles-Simpson commission, does reach agreement, it will only add pressure to
alter Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the worse—thus fatally blurring Obama’s bright line.
Was Obama’s speech—the most resolutely political, partisan, progressive, and effective in recent
memory—a turning point or a one-off? Is Obama now revising his theory and practice of presidential
power? As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a
book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the essence of a president’s power is “the
power to persuade.” Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the president to lead by
commanding, presidents amass power by making strategic choices about when to use the latent
authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as
clout to move Congress. In one of Neustadt’s classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely
considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 19471948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an
American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a president possesses several points of
leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear
the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his
opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble
inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition
legislators, forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support
of interest groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done
well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda. The most effective presidents
have worked all these levers. Think of Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, or Lyndon B. Johnson
during the era of the War on Poverty and the civil-rights crusade. But except in the endgame of the battle
for health care and his recent turnabout in defending Medicare, Obama has been relatively disengaged on
all of these fronts. He left the details of his signature legislation and attendant bargaining to his staff. Says
a senior Democrat who speaks frequently to Obama, “He is just not someone who enjoys what most of
presidential politics entails.” Reviewing Obama’s relatively short career, a few core principles emerge in
which he deeply believes. These have remained constants. Building Bridges. Obama, famously, is
convinced both by his life journey and his prior experience in politics that he can persuade almost any
adversary to find areas of common ground. “Much of Obama’s self-confidence,” wrote David Remnick in
his biography of Obama, The Bridge, “resided in his belief that he could walk into a room, with any sort
of people, and forge a relationship and even persuade those people of the rightness of his position.” From
the Harvard Law Review, to the Illinois Senate, to the Iowa precinct caucuses, Obama’s political life
before his presidency only strengthened that conviction. Obama has a deep certitude that the voters,
especially political independents, are sick of partisan division and want a leader who will rise above it to
solve practical problems. In service of that goal, he has bent over backward to praise his opposition rather
than attack it, frequently offering concessions in advance. Mostly, he has pursued common ground by
giving ground. The experience of his first two years, when Republicans wanted nothing so much as to
destroy him, did not shake Obama from these strategic beliefs. “He doesn’t have a fighter’s instinct, but
he is in the middle of a hugely consequential fight,” says a veteran Senate Democrat. “They will keep
pushing him as long as he keeps backing up.” His drawing of bright lines in the April 13 speech was very
much the exception. Defying Categories. This core political instinct interacts with, and is reinforced by,
Obama’s personal reticence and determination not to be the angry black man. From his first entry into
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 281
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
electoral politics, he defined himself as a different sort of African American and a different sort of liberal.
Even though his voting record as a U.S. senator was one of the most progressive, as president he has
almost gone out of his way to distance himself from the liberal base. In an interview with The New York
Times’ Peter Baker on the eve of the 2010 elections, Obama expressed regrets for looking too much like
“the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” Courting Elites, Wary of Mass Mobilization. Obama and
his campaign staff brilliantly enlisted an army of volunteers who thought of themselves as a movement
built on the values of sweeping change and the tactics of community organizing. Obama repeatedly
vowed that he would use these engaged citizens to press Congress to enact health reform and other urgent
priorities. But once elected, Obama’s political staff quickly downgraded Obama for America into
Organizing for America, a denatured arm of the Democratic National Committee—out of concern that an
independent movement might be more of a pressure group than an amen chorus. While he has maintained
a close—and politically damaging—alliance with Wall Street (and lately, under Chief of Staff Bill
Daley’s tutelage, has reached out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Obama has been detached from the
one recent popular rising that could help him win lost ground in the crucial states of the Midwest—the
backlash against union busting and draconian budget cuts by Midwestern Republican governors and
legislators. Though the line attributed to FDR speaking to supporters—“Now, make me do it”—is
probably apocryphal, Roosevelt did make good use of popular groups to his left, as did Lyndon Johnson
in his complex alliance with Martin Luther King. Obama and his political staff are distinctly
uncomfortable with independent mobilizations making him do anything. At a time when progressive
movements lack the energy of the 1930s or 1960s, the president has not chosen to help animate them. Zen
Leadership. The adjectives widely used to describe Obama are words like diffident, detached, aloof,
professorial. Obama practices restraint to a fault. As a policy expert and intellectual, he is hands-on when
it comes to White House deliberation but mostly hands-off with Congress. As Burns
demonstrated, power is enhanced in the course of its exercise. But Obama, despite his eloquence
and capacity to motivate, seems to believe that power should be conserved and presidential
leadership reserved for emergencies. He waited long and disabling months before
becoming personally engaged in the health-reform battle. This left the details obscure, voters
anxious, and Democrats at the August 2009 town meetings playing the role of pinata. By the time
the bill finally passed, the victory was politically Pyrrhic. An exasperated David Obey told me,
“Obama sat and let Jubilation T. Cornpone tie up Max Baucus for all those months. Hell, Chuck Grassley
made it clear to me that he’d never vote for the thing.” Obama and his team never embraced such
strategies as forcing Republicans (and conservative Democrats) to take awkward votes or using the veto
to define clear and principled differences. David Axelrod told me that the White House considered it
futile and self-defeating to bring up measures in the Senate that couldn’t win. This stance, the opposite of
Harry Truman’s, has infuriated Obama’s allies in the House. During the last session, important
progressive legislation on jobs and energy independence passed the House but was never even brought to
a vote in the Senate. In one emblematic episode in December 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled
out all the stops to get the House to narrowly pass a $154 billion public-investment, jobs, and
unemployment-extension bill. The White House, however, rebuffed Pelosi’s entreaties to urge Majority
Leader Harry Reid to bring the measure to a vote in the Senate. At the time, Obama’s aides were
convinced that job growth was around the corner, had already moved on to deficit reduction as the theme
of the 2010 State of the Union address, and were laying plans for “Recovery Summer,” a conceit that
entirely backfired. Except on such rare occasions at late stages of the health debate, it was not Obama’s
style to call in wavering Democrats to give them an LBJ-style treatment—or to call them in at all, even to
discuss major pending policy decisions. A number of senior Democrats were livid that they were kept in
the dark about the April 13 budget speech, which had evidently been months in preparation. They first
heard about it when David Plouffe, the White House political director, made the rounds of the Sunday
talk shows, three days before the speech. “You’ve heard of the ‘great man’ theory,” says Robert
Borosage, who co-directs the progressive Campaign for America’s Future. “They believe in the ‘great
speech’ theory.” Obama’s stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention established the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 282
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
novice as presidential timber. During the campaign, his superb address on race, a subject he dearly
wanted to avoid, saved his candidacy from being destroyed by the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah
Wright. But as president, much of the time Obama has been AWOL rather than a defining presence
driving the debate. His great speeches, like April’s budget address, often come late in the game, after
concessions have been made and damage done. Obama seems to relish demonstrating that he can score
the occasional touchdown run starting from his own end zone. But politics, like football, is a game of
cumulative scoring. If you keep giving ground, the clock eventually runs out . Hands off, above the
fray, turning the other cheek, representing decency and common purpose,conserving rather than wielding
power, uncomfortable with popular movements he doesn’t control—by some alchemy, this style of
leadership is expected to produce the voter approval that puts polite pressure on the other party to join the
quest for consensus. Reciprocity and compromise then result in effective government and popular
adulation. This has been Obama’s operating theory of power. For the most part, it hasn’t worked.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 283
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winners Win – Control Agenda
Perception of successful policy boosts president’s power to control agenda
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies
professor, 04
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 98)
It was the sense of national emergency associated with the cold war during the fifties and sixties, after all,
that was the ultimate source of presidential power and American global leadership following World War
II. This means that the fragmented and pluralist political environment that has prevailed since Vietnam
will likely continue in the post-cold war future, posing greater foreign policy opportunities and political
risks for presidents and American leadership abroad. And as the American public focuses its concern
increasingly on “intermestic” (and especially economic) issues, presidents who are perceived as dealing
successfully with those issues are likely to enjoy an increase in their popularity and ability to govern in
foreign policy and in general. But much will depend on the image that Americans have of a president’s
policies and of their relative success, at home and abroad – a function of the turn of events and the
strength of presidential leadership.
Coalition building using leadership bolsters agenda
Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute fellow and political analyst, 93
(Norman J., Roll Call, “Clinton Can Still Emerge a Winner; Here's What to Do”, May 27, p. Online)
1. A president's power is defined by his relations with Congress. A president must exercise power in
many arenas, persuading many audiences at home and abroad. But the key test for a president's clout or
success is how he is judged in dealing with Congress: Does he master them, or do they master him?
The successful president, I suggested in these pages in March, comes across like animal tamer
Gunther Gebel-Williams: He gets into the ring with the Congressional lions and tigers, cracks the
whip, and, although they growl and roar, they still get up on their tiny little stools and perform. But
if a president looks like Gulliver, a pitiful, helpless giant dominated by Congressional Lilliputians,
then watch out.
Winning in this regard does not mean forcing sweeping proposals, in toto, down the throats of lawmakers.
It means compromising, cutting back, and ceding ground to build majorities, but doing so in ways
that make it clear that you are in control.
Winners win – empirically proven
Green, Hofstra University political science professor, 10
[David Michael, 6/11/10, "The Do-Nothing 44th President", http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-DoNothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html, Accessed 7/9/13]
Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential
boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the
president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go
around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and
especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and
George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power
all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 284
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one
remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they
could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with
virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 285
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 286
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Persuasion Fails
Presidential rhetoric has no effect on the public or on Congress- empirical data
proves
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded? Who listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
MSG]
In 1993, George Edwards, the director of the Center for Presidential Studies, at Texas A. & M.
University, sponsored a program in Presidential rhetoric. The program led to a conference, and the
organizers asked their patron to present a paper. Edwards didn’t know anything about Presidential
rhetoric himself, however, so he asked the organizers for a list of the best works in the field to help him
prepare.
Like many political scientists, Edwards is an empiricist. He deals in numbers and tables and charts, and
even curates something called the Presidential Data Archive. The studies he read did not impress him.
One, for example, concluded that “public speech no longer attends the processes of governance—it
is governance,” but offered no rigorous evidence. Instead, the author justified his findings with
vague statements like “One anecdote should suffice to make this latter point.”
Nearly twenty years later, Edwards still sounds offended. “They were talking about Presidential
speeches as if they were doing literary criticism,” he says. “I just started underlining the claims that were
faulty.” As a result, his conference presentation, “Presidential Rhetoric: What Difference Does It Make?,”
was less a contribution to the research than a frontal assault on it. The paper consists largely of quotations
from the other political scientists’ work, followed by comments such as “He is able to offer no systematic
evidence,” and “We have no reason to accept such a conclusion,” and “Sometimes the authors’ assertions,
implicit or explicit, are clearly wrong.”
Edwards ended his presentation with a study of his own, on Ronald Reagan, who is generally
regarded as one of the Presidency’s great communicators. Edwards wrote, “If we cannot find
evidence of the impact of the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, then we have reason to reconsider the
broad assumptions regarding the consequences of rhetoric.” As it turns out, there was reason to
reconsider. Reagan succeeded in passing major provisions of his agenda, such as the 1981 tax cuts,
but, Edwards wrote, “surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs
and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid
to minorities”—all programs that the President opposed—“increased rather than decreased during
Reagan’s tenure.” Meanwhile, “support for increased defense expenditures was decidedly lower at
the end of his administration than at the beginning.” In other words, people were less persuaded by
Reagan when he left office than they were when he took office.
Nor was Reagan’s Presidency distinguished by an unusually strong personal connection with the
electorate. A study by the Gallup organization, from 2004, found that, compared with all the
Presidential job-approval ratings it had on record, Reagan’s was slightly below average, at fiftythree per cent. It was only after he left office that Americans came to see him as an unusually
likable and effective leader.
According to Edwards, Reagan’s real achievement was to take advantage of a transformation that
predated him. Edwards quotes various political scientists who found that conservative attitudes
peaked, and liberal attitudes plateaued, in the late nineteen-seventies, and that Reagan was the
beneficiary of these trends, rather than their instigator. Some of Reagan’s closest allies support this
view. Martin Anderson, who served as Reagan’s chief domestic-policy adviser, wrote, “What has been
called the Reagan revolution is not completely, or even mostly, due to Ronald Reagan. . . . It was the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 287
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
other way around.” Edwards later wrote, “As one can imagine, I was a big hit with the auditorium full of
dedicated scholars of rhetoric.”
Edwards’s views are no longer considered radical in political-science circles, in part because he has
marshalled so much evidence in support of them. In his book “On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully
Pulpit” (2003), he expanded the poll-based rigor that he applied to Reagan’s rhetorical influence to
that of nearly every other President since the nineteen-thirties. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside
chats are perhaps the most frequently cited example of Presidential persuasion. Cue Edwards: “He
gave only two or three fireside chats a year, and rarely did he focus them on legislation under
consideration in Congress. It appears that FDR only used a fireside chat to discuss such matters on
four occasions, the clearest example being the broadcast on March 9, 1937, on the ill-fated ‘Courtpacking’ bill.” Edwards also quotes the political scientists Matthew Baum and Samuel Kernell, who, in a
more systematic examination of Roosevelt’s radio addresses, found that they fostered “less than a 1
percentage point increase” in his approval rating. His more traditional speeches didn’t do any
better. He was unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War, for example, until
Pearl Harbor.
No President worked harder to persuade the public, Edwards says, than Bill Clinton. Between his
first inauguration, in January, 1993, and his first midterm election, in November, 1994, he travelled to
nearly two hundred cities and towns, and made more than two hundred appearances, to sell his
Presidency, his legislative initiatives (notably his health-care bill), and his party. But his poll numbers
fell, the health-care bill failed, and, in the next election, the Republicans took control of the House of
Representatives for the first time in more than forty years. Yet Clinton never gave up on the idea
that all he needed was a few more speeches, or a slightly better message. “I’ve got to . . . spend more
time communicating with the American people,” the President said in a 1994 interview. Edwards notes,
“It seems never to have occurred to him or his staff that his basic strategy may have been
inherently flawed.”
George W. Bush was similarly invested in his persuasive ability. After the 2004 election, the Bush
Administration turned to the longtime conservative dream of privatizing Social Security. Bush led
the effort, with an unprecedented nationwide push that took him to sixty cities in sixty days. “Let me
put it to you this way,” he said at a press conference, two days after the election. “I earned capital in the
campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” But the poll numbers for privatization—and
for the President—kept dropping, and the Administration turned to other issues.
Obama, too, believes in the power of Presidential rhetoric. After watching the poll numbers for his
health-care plan, his stimulus bill, his Presidency, and his party decline throughout 2010, he told Peter
Baker, of the Times, that he hadn’t done a good enough job communicating with the American
people: “I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an
intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public
opinion.”
The annual State of the Union address offers the clearest example of the misconception. The best
speechwriters are put on the task. The biggest policy announcements are saved for it. The speech is
carried on all the major networks, and Americans have traditionally considered watching it to be
something of a civic duty. And yet Gallup, after reviewing polls dating back to 1978, concluded that
“these speeches rarely affect a president’s public standing in a meaningful way, despite the amount
of attention they receive.” Obama’s 2012 address fit the pattern. His approval rating was forty-six per
cent on the day of the speech, and forty-seven per cent a week later.
Presidents have plenty of pollsters on staff, and they give many speeches in the course of a year. So how
do they so systematically overestimate the importance of those speeches? Edwards believes that by
the time Presidents reach the White House their careers have taught them that they can persuade
anyone of anything. “Think about how these guys become President,” he says. “The normal way is
talking for two years. That’s all you do, and somehow you win. You must be a really persuasive
fellow.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 288
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Compartmentalization by Congress means opposition is never persuaded
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
HG]
Back-room bargains and quiet negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the Presidency.
And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but,
ultimately, the Speaker didn’t make a private deal with the President for the same reason that
Republican legislators don’t swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party,
and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may
become increasingly difficult for a President to govern—and there’s little that he can do about it.
Theorists have long worried over this possibility. They note that our form of government is not common.
As Juan Linz, a professor of political science at Yale, pointed out in a 1989 paper, “The only presidential
democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States.” A broad tendency
toward instability and partisan conflict, he writes, is woven into the fabric of a political system in
which a democratically elected executive can come from one party and a democratically elected
legislature from another. Both sides end up having control over some levers of power, a claim to be
carrying out the will of the public, and incentives that point in opposite directions.
The American system has traditionally had certain features that reduced the stakes—notably, political
parties that encompassed a diverse range of opinions and often acted at cross purposes with themselves.
But today the parties operate as disciplined, consistent units. According to Congressional Quarterly, in
2009 and 2010 Democrats and Republicans voted with their parties ninety per cent of the time. That
rigidity has made American democracy much more difficult to manage—and it has made the President, as
party leader, a much more divisive figure.
Edwards, ever the data cruncher, has the numbers to back up this perception. “When President Obama
took office, he enjoyed a 68 percent approval level, the highest of any newly elected president since John
F. Kennedy,” he wrote in a recent paper. “For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, however, his early
approval ratings were the most polarized of any president in the past four decades. By February 15,
less than a month after taking office, only 30 percent of Republicans approved of his performance in
office while 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents approved. The gap between
Democratic and Republican approval had already reached 59 percentage points—and Obama never again
reached even 30 percent approval among Republicans.”
This, Edwards says, is the reality facing modern Presidents, and one they would do well to accommodate.
“In a rational world, strategies for governing should match the opportunities to be exploited,” he writes.
“Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to transform the
political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he succeeded in achieving major change, it
was by mobilizing those predisposed to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a partyline vote.”
That’s easier said than done. We don’t have a system of government set up for Presidents to drive
legislation through Congress. Rather, we have a system that was designed to encourage division
between the branches but to resist the formation of political parties. The parties formed anyway, and
they now use the branches to compete with one another. Add in minority protections like the filibuster,
and you have a system in which the job of the President is to persuade an opposition party that has both
the incentive and the power to resist him.
Jim Cooper says, “We’ve effectively lost our Congress and gained a parliament.” He adds, “At least a
Prime Minister is empowered to get things done,” but “we have the extreme polarization of a parliament,
with party-line voting, without the empowered Prime Minister.” And you can’t solve that with a speech.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 289
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Theories of presidential persuasion are false – American Jobs Act proves
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
HG]
Richard Neustadt, who died in 2003, was the most influential scholar of the American Presidency. He was
a founder of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an adviser to Harry Truman, John F.
Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton, and, in his book “Presidential Power” (1960), he wrote the
most frequently quoted line in Presidential studies: “The power of the presidency is the power to
persuade.” On August 31st of last year, President Barack Obama prepared to exercise that power.
Frustrated with the slow recovery of the economy, he wanted to throw the weight of his office
behind a major new stimulus package, the American Jobs Act. To this end, the White House
announced that the President would deliver a televised speech to a joint session of Congress, and, as is
customary, the President sent a letter to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, asking him to schedule
the address for September 7th. Boehner, the man Obama needed to persuade above all others, said no.
In a written reply to the President, the Speaker said that the House had votes scheduled for six-thirty that
evening. He added, “It is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when
we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your
remarks.” Few believed that this was all there was to it. Boehner’s real objection, most thought, was that
the Republican Presidential candidates were scheduled to hold a televised debate at the Reagan Library on
the seventh, and Obama’s speech would upstage it. The White House, meanwhile, had its own concerns:
Boehner’s suggested date would pit the President against the opening game of the N.F.L. season.
No Speaker of the House had ever refused a President’s request to address a joint session of Congress, but
the House Republicans refused to budge, and the back-and-forth, which was dominating and delighting
the political news media, threatened to overwhelm the President’s message on jobs. In the end, Obama
agreed to speak on the eighth.
He was in a combative mood, and, after a summer in which the Republicans had driven the economic
debate, with their brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, the Democrats were thrilled to see him take back
the legislative initiative. When the TV ratings came in, the White House was relieved: with thirty-one
million viewers, the President had beaten the N.F.L. But, in the days following the speech, Obama’s
approval rating was essentially unchanged—according to a Gallup poll, it actually dropped a
percentage point. The audience, apparently, had not been won over. Neither had Congress: the
American Jobs Act was filibustered in the Senate and ignored in the House. The White House
attempted to break the act into component parts, but none of the major provisions—expanded payroll-tax
cuts, infrastructure investment, and a tax credit for businesses that hired unemployed workers—have
passed. The President’s effort at persuasion failed . The question is, could it have succeeded?
Negotiations fail – Boehner proves
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
HG]
One option is to exert private leadership. The Obama Administration has had some success with this
approach. Late in 2010, some observers wondered why the White House, which clearly believed that
there was a need for further stimulus, wasn’t pushing Republicans on a payroll-tax cut, one of the few
stimulus measures they had seemed somewhat open to. Then, suddenly, after the midterm election, it
appeared in the tax deal. Axelrod says, “We didn’t put the payroll-tax cut into our speeches in the fall
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 290
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
because we didn’t think we could pass it, and we worried that if we included it in our rhetoric it might
pollute the issue and impair our chances of getting it done after the election.”
Back-room bargains and quiet negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the
Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room
together, but, ultimately, the Speaker didn’t make a private deal with the President for the same
reason that Republican legislators don’t swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the
Democratic Party, and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more
sharply divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to govern—and there’s little
that he can do about it.
No internal link – Presidents do not have persuasive power, they can only use their
agenda setting usefully if the public is behind them
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-13-12, Washington Post, “Presidential persuasion: The case of Iraq,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/presidential-persuasion-the-case-ofiraq/2011/08/25/gIQAzemh9R_blog.html, accessed 7-8-13, MSG]
Kevin Drum responds to my piece on the ineffectiveness of presidential persuasion by asking, in
effect: What about Iraq? The question gets to a weakness in my article. For space reasons, I didn’t
spend much time making the distinction between “persuasion” and “agenda setting.” But it’s a
crucial one.
There’s no doubt that the president can focus both the public and the political system on a
particular issue. Iraq is the ultimate example. Neither Congress nor the American people were
thinking very much about Saddam Hussein and Iraq in July 2001, or even in October 2001. By the
middle of 2003, it was all they were thinking about. That’s the power of presidential agenda setting.
It is, perhaps, the most significant power the president possesses.
But it, too, is a limited power. In particular, it’s limited, at least in my view, by the fact that presidents
are typically unable to persuade the public or the Congress of things they don’t already believe.
This is what keeps the president from being, in political scientist George Edwards’s terminology, a
“director of change” and makes him instead a “facilitator of change.”
So the question with Iraq is whether it’s an example of agenda setting, persuasion or both?
The polling suggests that although Iraq was a remarkable example of ambitious and sustained
agenda setting, was not necessarily an example of persuasion. John Sides posts this graph from Gary
Jacobson:
The American people, in other words, were persuaded of the virtue of removing Saddam Hussein
long before 9/11. They may not have seen it as something we needed to do right this second, or even as
the best use of federal resources, but when asked whether they were for or against it, they were for it.
Bush used 9/11 to make Iraq a high-priority issue, and his administration did expend considerable
persuasive energy justifying this decision. But they were working from a base line in which most
Americans, when asked, agreed that we should overthrow Hussein.
That doesn’t take away from Bush’s achievement, such as it was. He saw that 9/11 presented an
opportunity to invade Iraq, and he was very effective in using his agenda-setting power to make
that happen. If not for him, the fact that Americans were passively in favor of regime change in
Iraq wouldn’t have mattered. But if Americans hadn’t been against regime change in Iraq — if he
hadn’t been working off of a favorable base line — it’s not clear he could have succeeded.
To put it another way, it sounds obvious to the point of being silly to say that if Bush had asked
Congress to authorize war with Peru, they wouldn’t have done it. But that’s actually precisely the
point: There was a preexisting willingness to “finish the job” in Iraq, and that was crucial to Bush’s
success. If the “persuasion” lift had been larger, the war likely wouldn’t have happened.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 291
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
That said, you can see something else I argue in that graph: Bush’s efforts on Iraq eventually polarized
public opinion. In 2001, large majorities of Democrats and Republicans supported further action
against Hussein. By 2004, only 20 percent of Democrats supported the war.
Kevin also argues that Ronald Reagan’s presidency changed the public’s attitude towards taxation
in an enduring way. This is conventional wisdom, but it’s not evident in the polling. If anything, the
belief that the income tax people paid was “too high” fell after Reagan:
It’s clear that Reagan’s presidency — and, perhaps as importantly, George H.W. Bush’s presidency
— changed the politics of taxes inside the Republican Party. But I’m not certain that the country’s
attitude toward taxes changed dramatically. Bill Clinton raised taxes when he was president, and he
seemed to do okay. More recently, Barack Obama has had considerable success arguing for tax increases
on wealthier Americans. But I’m sure there’s more thorough scholarship on this subject, and I’m open to
being proved wrong.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 292
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Persuasion Backfires
Presidential persuasion backfires – compartmentalizes policymakers and increases
opposition to proposals
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, “The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a President?”,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13,
HG]
But being President isn’t the same as running for President. When you’re running for President, giving a
good speech helps you achieve your goals. When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent
you from achieving them.
In January, 2004, George W. Bush announced his intention to “take the next steps of space
exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.” It was an occasion that might have
presented a moment of bipartisan unity: a Republican President was proposing to spend billions of
dollars on a public project to further John F. Kennedy’s dream of venturing deep into the cosmos. As
Frances Lee, now a professor at the University of Maryland, recalls, “That wasn’t a partisan issue at all.
Democrats had no position on sending a mission to Mars.” But, she says, “they suddenly began to
develop one. They began to believe it was a waste of money.” Congressional Democrats pushed the
argument in press releases, public statements, and television appearances. In response, the White House,
which had hinted that the Mars mission would feature prominently in the State of the Union address,
dropped it from the speech.
The experience helped to crystallize something that Lee had been thinking about. “Most of the work on
the relationship between the President and Congress was about the President as the agenda setter,” she
says. “I was coming at it from the perspective of the increase in partisanship, and so I looked at Presidents
not as legislative leaders but as party leaders.” That changes things dramatically. As Lee writes in her
book “Beyond Ideology” (2009), there are “inherent zero-sum conflicts between the two parties’
political interests as they seek to win elections.” Put more simply, the President’s party can’t win unless
the other party loses. And both parties know it. This, Lee decided, is the true nature of our political
system.
To test her theory, she created a database of eighty-six hundred Senate votes between 1981 and 2004. She
found that a President’s powers of persuasion were strong, but only within his own party. Nearly
four thousand of the votes were of the mission-to-Mars variety—they should have found support among
both Democrats and Republicans. Absent a President’s involvement, these votes fell along party lines just
a third of the time, but when a President took a stand that number rose to more than half. The same thing
happened with votes on more partisan issues, such as bills that raised taxes; they typically split along
party lines, but when a President intervened the divide was even sharper.
One way of interpreting this is that party members let their opinion of the President influence their
evaluation of the issues. That’s not entirely unreasonable. A Democrat might have supported an
intervention in Iraq but questioned George W. Bush’s ability to manage it effectively. Another
interpretation is that party members let their political incentives influence how they evaluate policy.
“Whatever people think about raw policy issues, they’re aware that Presidential successes will help the
President’s party and hurt the opposing party,” Lee says. “It’s not to say they’re entirely cynical, but the
fact that success is useful to the President’s party is going to have an effect on how members respond.”
Or, to paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it’s difficult to get a man to support something if his reëlection depends
on his not supporting it.
Both parties are guilty of this practice. Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, recalls
discussing the Social Security privatization plan with a sympathetic Democrat on the House Ways and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 293
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Means Committee. He says that the representative told him, “You wouldn’t get everything you want and I
wouldn’t get everything I want, but we could solve the problem. But I can’t do it because my leadership
won’t let me.” Rove says, “It was less about Social Security than it was about George W. Bush.” At
various times during the nineteen-nineties, Clinton and other Democrats had been open to adding some
form of private accounts to Social Security, and in 1997 there were, reportedly, quiet discussions between
Democrats and Republicans about doing exactly that. In theory, this background might have led to a
compromise in 2005, but Bush’s aggressive sales pitch had polarized the issue.
The Obama Administration was taken by surprise when congressional Republicans turned against
the individual mandate in health-care reform; it was the Republicans, after all, who had
championed the idea, in 1993, as an alternative to the Clinton initiative. During the next decade, dozens
of Senate Republicans co-sponsored health-care plans that included a mandate. Mitt Romney, of course,
passed one when he was governor of Massachusetts. In 2007, when Senator Jim DeMint, of South
Carolina—now a favorite of the Tea Party—endorsed Romney for President, he cited his health-care plan
as a reason for doing so.
Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, who supported the mandate before he opposed it, shrugs off his party’s
change of heart. “We were fighting Hillarycare,” he has said, of the Republicans’ original position. In
other words, Clinton polarized Republicans against one health-care proposal, and then Obama turned
them against another.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 294
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Political Capital Theory Flawed
Political capital theory is vague and impossible to quantify
Soha, University of North Texas Associate Professor, and Rottinghaus, University of
Houston Associate professor, 13
[Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha and Brandon Rottinghaus, March 2013, Presidential Studies Quarterly 43, no.
1, “Presidential Position Taking and the
Puzzle of Representation,” Page 5, CB]
These studies limit what we can conclude about presidential representation for two¶ primary
reasons. First, many of studies of presidential representation do not take specific¶ presidential
positions into account. Instead, they amalgamate all liberal or conservative¶ positions by the
president as a way to test for responsiveness. Although this provides an¶ excellent broad measure of
ideology, it may miss presidential responsiveness to important¶ subgroups that are important to
presidential success in Congress and reelection. This¶ may also miss important issues not included in the
measure or which do not load on a¶ traditional left-right scale (Page 2002). A second issue is that,
without specific policies to¶ explore representation, we may overstate the president’s representational
qualities. For¶ example, if a president unveils a predominately liberal policy but only talks about
the¶ conservative elements, one might misrepresent to whom the president responds with his¶
legislative agenda. Presidents could also be forced to take public positions in response to¶
circumstances outside of their control, which might overrepresent these issues as part of¶ the
president’s larger policy agenda. Related to this, minor deviations in responsive¶ tendencies are coded
the same as large deviations. For instance, Canes-Wrone and Shotts’s¶ (2004) dichotomous measure of
congruence may overstate or understate presidential¶ representation in that even a small increase or
decrease in the president’s budgetary¶ request would be coded as being fully congruent with the public.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 295
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Political Capital Key [Beckmann and Kumar]
Beckmann and Kumar admit it’s situational – their political theories offer varied
results and propositions depending on who is in congress and how much political
capital the president has right now
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
However, if spending political capital in the service of vote-centered and agenda-¶ centered strategies
is a necessary condition for presidents to have positive influence in¶ Congress, it certainly is not a
sufficient condition. Instead, we find the exact policy return ¶ on a particular presidential lobbying
campaign is conditioned by the location of the status quo, and the nature of leading opponents’ and
pivotal voters’ preferences . Beyond¶ enjoying ample political capital, then, those presidents who seek to
change far-off status¶ quos and confront pliable leading opponents and/or pivotal voters are expected to
wield¶ the greatest policymaking impact. By comparison, presidents with little to no political¶ capital,
seeking to change centrist status quos, or confronting opposing leaders and piv-¶ otal voters who staunchly
oppose their proposals can find themselves with ‘nothing to do¶ but stand there and take it’, as
Lyndon Johnson once put it.
Their model assumes the President spending political capital and adapting perfectly
Beckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of
Technology economics professor, 11
[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC
Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A
model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Ebsco, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
One important point: in anticipating how the game will be played and exactly how¶ much he can
influence pivotal voters, in our model the president never proposes some-¶ thing which the opposition
leader can defeat. This point is important because our presidents strategically adapt their proposals
to meet practical realities, and, as such, the¶ appropriate measure of a president’s success is not
passage per se, but rather the substance of what passes (or does not). In practice, presidents do not
seem to adapt their ¶ proposals so strategically (Light, 1982; Peterson, 1990), so¶ α¶ ’s real-world
empirical referent is better thought of as what the president signs into law (if anything) rather than what
he proposes. In terms of content, how close is the outcome to what the president¶ actually preferred?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 296
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – GOP Compromise
Republican obstructionism impedes Obama from passing legislation
Sargent, Washington Post, 13
[Greg, 7/9/13, The Washington Post, “Sabotage governing,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plumline/wp/2013/07/09/sabotage-governing/, accessed 7/10/13, AS]
It’s not unusual to hear dirty hippie liberal blogger types (and the occasional lefty Nobel Prize
winner) point out that today’s GOP has effectively abdicated the role of functional opposition party,
instead opting for a kind of post-policy nihilism in which sabotaging the Obama agenda has become
its only guiding governing light.
But when you hear this sort of argument coming from Chuck Todd, the mild-mannered, well respected
Beltway insider, it should prompt folks to take notice. That’s essentially what Todd, along with Mark
Murray and the rest of MSNBC’s First Read crew, argued this morning. It’s worth quoting at length:
More on The Plum Line Happy Hour Roundup Jonathan Bernstein 8 hours ago Our nightly wrap-up of
news and opinion. GOP response to farm bill debacle: Move it further to the right Greg Sargent 9 hours
ago But that isn't good enough for conservatives, either. So now what? Pelosi to Boehner: Immigration
reform must be comprehensive Greg Sargent 12 hours ago The Democratic leader issues a subtle threat to
the House GOP leader. GOP opposition to gay workplace equality will do wonders for that `makeover’
Greg Sargent 14 hours ago The coming debate over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act gives the
GOP another shot to revive that "makeover" that has fallen by the wayside. Here’s a thought exercise on
this summer morning: Imagine that after the controversial Medicare prescription-drug legislation was
passed into law in 2003, Democrats did everything they could to thwart one of George W. Bush’s top
domestic achievements. They launched Senate filibusters to block essential HHS appointees from
administering the law; they warned the sports and entertainment industries from participating in
any public service announcements to help seniors understand how the law works; and, after taking
control of the House of Representatives in 2007, they used the power of the purse to prohibit any
more federal funds from being used to implement the law. As it turns out, none of that happened.
And despite Democratic warnings that the law would be a bust — we remember the 2004 Dem
presidential candidates campaigning against it — the Medicare prescription-drug law has been, for the
most part, a pretty big success.
But that thought exercise has become a reality 10 years later as Republicans have worked to
thwart/stymie/sabotage — pick your word — the implementation of President Obama’s health-care and
financial-reform laws.
Recently, the top-two Senate Republicans — Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn — wrote a letter to
the NFL and other major sports leagues warning them not to participate in any campaign to
promote implementation of Obamacare. The Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity is in
unchartered waters running TV ads to help prevent the law from being implemented, while the Obama
political arm is also on the air promoting implementation. And Senate Republicans have vowed to
filibuster any nominee (no matter how qualified) to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under
the financial-reform law. [...]
And this all raises the question: What’s the line between fighting for your ideology and ensuring that
the government that pays your salaries actually works — or even attempts to work? At some point,
governing has to take place, but when does that begin? We know what opponents will say in response
to this: These are bad laws, and we have to do whatever it takes to stop them. But at what point does an
election have a governing consequence?
For more on that effort by top Republicans to warn the NFL off of participating in any campaign to
promote Obamacare, see Jonathan Bernstein’s piece.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 297
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
This from MSNBC’s First Read crew is very well said. But I’d take it further; it goes well beyond
Obama care implementation and the relentless blockading of Obama nominees for the explicit
purpose of preventing democratically-created agencies from functioning. We’ve slowly crossed over
into something a bit different. It’s now become accepted as normal that Republicans will threaten
explicitly to allow harm to the country to get what they want, and will allow untold numbers of
Americans to be hurt rather than even enter into negotiations over the sort of compromises that lie
at the heart of basic governing.
Sam Stein’s big piece today details the very real toll the sequester cuts are taking on real people across the
country, and crucially, it explains that the sequester was deliberately designed to threaten harm in
order to compel lawmakers to act to reduce the deficit. But Republicans will not consider replacing
those cuts with anything other than 100 percent in cuts elsewhere, which is to say, they will only
consider replacing them with 100 percent of what they want. Meanwhile, Republicans are drawing up a
list of spending cuts they will demand in exchange for raising the debt limit, even though John
Boehner has openly admitted that default would do untold damage to the U.S. economy. Indeed, even if
default doesn’t end up happening, the threat of it risks damaging the economy, yet Republicans still
insist they will use it as leverage to get what they want, anyway.
As Todd and the First Read crew hint at, the GOP campaign against Obamacare is straying into this
mode of governing. Indeed, on Meet the Press this weekend, Todd made this even more explicit,
accusing Republicans of “trying to sabotage the law.” The current GOP campaign isn’t just about
opposing the Affordable Care Act or arguing for its repeal. It’s about making it harder for uninsured
Americans to gain access to coverage under a law passed and signed by a democratically elected
Congress and President, and upheld by the Supreme Court, in service of the political goal of making it a
greater liability for Democrats in the 2014 elections (the law, after all, isn’t going to get repealed).
This is not typical opposition, and its good to hear this stated outright by someone as respected inside the
Beltway as Chuck Todd. The only mystery is why more journalists aren’t willing to point it out.
After all, Republicans are making this basic reality harder and harder to ignore.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 298
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
AT – Bully Pulpit
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 299
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
No Audience
Bully pulpit is irrelevant in the technological era—their evidence doesn’t account
for Obama’s inability to secure an audience
Zelizer, Princeton University professor of history and public affairs, 11
(Julian E., 7/11/11, CNN Opinion, “President's bully pulpit is not what it used to be,”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/11/zelizer.obama.twitter/index.html, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
During the 1960s, when Presidents Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon spoke, the choice was to hear them or
turn off the television and radio. Today, if President Obama wanted to conduct a fireside chat, it is
doubtful that many people would be listening.
With the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the media were also able to shed the appearance of
neutrality and objectivity. Every perspective did not have to receive equal time. On many television
and radio stations, objective reporters have been replaced with openly partisan commentators. Any
presidential message is quickly surrounded by polemical instant commentary that diminishes the
power of what he says.
Making matters worse, on the Internet, presidents can't even fully control the time they have as they
must compete with live blogs and video commentary as they try to share their message. Even within
most households, the era of the single family television is gone. Now in many middle-class families
everyone has their own media and is watching their own thing.
President Obama has gone to great lengths to find new ways to reach the American people. But he is
trying to achieve a 20th-century goal in a century when it is no longer possible. The reality is that
presidents, Democrat or Republican, will have to find new ways to exercise what power they have
and should no longer expect the opportunity to simply take their case to the public.
Obama can’t use the bully pulpit—his agenda gets drowned out by other issues
Goldman, Bloomberg News chief White House correspondent, 5/23/13
(Julianna, May 23 2013, Bloomberg News, “Obama Bully Pulpit Bullied With Congress Probes
Obscuring Agenda,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-24/obama-bully-pulpit-bullied-withcongress-probes-obscuring-agenda.html, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
President Barack Obama renewed his oath of office in January vowing to use the bully pulpit to rally
the American people around his second-term agenda.
Now, with a trio of controversies fueled by relentless attacks from congressional Republicans, the
limits of the presidential megaphone are on display.
Since it was revealed on May 10 that the Internal Revenue Service improperly screened Tea Party and
other smaller-government groups seeking tax-exempt status, the president has struggled to shift the focus.
Press conferences with foreign leaders, a new campaign to sell his economic plans and yesterday’s
announcement of his new counter-terrorism policy have been overshadowed in news reports.
“The bully pulpit has got a little bit of a drape over it when you’ve got everyone throwing rotten
tomatoes over it,” said Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton.
Obama has a limited window to galvanize Americans, put his stamp on revamping the nation’s
immigration laws, pursue climate-change legislation and ensure that the plan to expand health
coverage to tens of millions of the uninsured is carried out in the face of Republican resistance.
Every day that his message is overtaken by the static noise of congressional probes -- into theJustice
Department’s seizure of phone records from the Associated Press, the administration’s handling of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 300
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
September attack on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and questions about what White House aides
knew about the IRS scandal and when they knew it -- is a missed opportunity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 301
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
No Opinion Shift
Bully pulpit is only effective on issues popular with the public—pushing
controversial policies backfires
National Journal 5/30/13
(Sophie Quinton, “The Bully Pulpit Won’t Help Obama Get a Grand Bargain,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-bully-pulpit-won-t-help-obama-get-a-grand-bargain20121029, Accessed 7/8/13, JC)
The Obama campaign believes in taking its message to the American people. But history shows that,
when it comes to the tough issues, use of the bully pulpit can backfire. As Congress faces its toughest
negotiating challenge yet, the next president may want to consider keeping a low profile.
The bully pulpit can work when a president takes advantage of a groundswell of public support that
already exists. But when a president takes a high-profile stance on a controversial issue, it makes it
harder for the opposing party to support his plan.
“When you raise the profile of the issues, you also raise the political stakes for members of Congress
on both sides of the aisle. It makes it harder for the members of your own party to oppose you, but it
makes it harder for members of the opposite party to support you,” said Frances Lee, professor of
American politics at the University of Maryland.
President George W. Bush launched his second term with a very public push for Social Security
privatization. He got nowhere. In fact, public support declined, Lee said.
“We determined that if we were going to have a chance to get Social Security reformed it was not going
to be the kind of thing that we could just get done, quietly, in Congress,” said Tony Fratto, a partner at
Hamilton Place Strategies and former communications adviser in the Bush White House. The Bush team
believed that the public first needed to learn why privatization made sense, Fratto said.
“My instinct would always be to go out and try to educate more” when it comes to complicated issues,
Fratto said. But he admitted that an aggressive communications strategy on such issues hasn’t had the
best track record.
President Clinton campaigned all around the country to try to raise support for his health care plan
and failed. The Obama White House tried everything from speeches and town hall meetings to blog
posts and tweets to try to rally the public around health care reform. The law—which was based on
what were initially Republican ideas—was rammed through Congress on a party line vote.
Democrats love it. Republicans despise it.
President Reagan, remembered as “the great communicator,” had the benefit of a cross-party
coalition in Congress that no longer exists, Lee said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 302
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Theory Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 303
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Bottom of the Docket
Plan is at the bottom of the docket – normal means indicates it doesn’t receive priority over the agenda
item.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 304
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Winding Way
Plan passage starts now, but it still has to go through the committees and votes of the legislative process.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 305
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
No Backlash
No backlash to the plan – multiple committees and members of Congress who supported it are also
associated with the plan. Obama doesn’t get the blame.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 306
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Fiat Solves the Link
Fiat solves the link. This debate is a question of should, not would, the plan happen. The plan bypasses
the political process. You still get the politics DA, your links just have to test the desirability of the plan
not the process.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 307
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Vote No
Vote no – this round functions as a congressional debate. Political capital is spent in the process of the
debate, so a negative vote doesn’t avoid the link to the DA.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 308
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Core
Non-Intrinsic
The DA isn’t intrinsic. A logical policymaker can do the plan and solve the DA. The DA isn’t an
opportunity cost to doing the plan.