Politics Handout
Fiat- the idea that the affirmative gets to imagine the government adopts a desirable course of action despite it
being unlikely to happen in the real world
Agenda- the presidents wish list- what he wants congress to do
Docket- the congressional to do list- what they will address and in what order
Legislation- a bill that is trying to pass in congress
Bipartisan- both parties support a piece of legislation
Partisan- an issue breaks down party lines- one party supports the other opposes
Political capital- the idea that a president needs to influence members of congress to get them to agree to his
agenda
Political capital is finite- capital is like money, there is only so much of it and after you spend it its gone
Winners win- passing controversial policies is considered a "victory" for the president as it shows what a bad
ass he is- people then become afraid of him and capitulate to his agenda
Parts of a disadvantage
Uniqueness- what is going on in the status quo that the neg thinks is desireable
Link- how the affirmative advocacy will change the status quo for the worse
Impact- what is bad that will result from that change
Sample Evidence
Political capital is finite and key to the agenda
Beckman and Kumar ‘11
[Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Profs Department of Political Science, @ University of California Irvine "How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win"
Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 SAGE]
Before developing presidents’ lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is
instructive to consider cases where
the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of imposed passivity (beyond
offering a proposal), a president’s fate is clear : his proposals are subject to pivotal voters’ preferences. So if a president lacking
political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal
voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivot’s predisposition (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998)
(see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that there tends to be substantial ideological distance between
presidents and pivotal voters, positive presidential influence without lobbying, then, is not much influence at all.¶ As with all
lobbyists, presidents looking to push legislation must do so indirectly by pushing the lawmakers whom they need to pass it. Or, as
Richard Nesustadt artfully explained:¶ The essence of a President’s persuasive task, with congressmen and everybody else, is to
induce them to believe that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal of their own responsibilities requires
them to do in their interest, not his…Persuasion deals in the coin of self-interest with men who have some freedom to reject what they find
counterfeit. (Neustadt, 1990: 40) ¶ Fortunately for contemporary presidents, today’s White House affords its occupants an unrivaled
supply of persuasive carrots and sticks. Beyond the office’s unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their representatives in
Congress, presidents may also sway lawmakers by using their discretion in budgeting and/or rulemaking, unique fundraising and
campaigning capacity, control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under the chief executive’s control.
Plainly, when it
comes to the arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes legislative
battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the fight. In the following we employ the omnibus concept of ‘presidential
political capital’ to capture this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining.¶ Specifi- cally, we define presidents’
political capital as the class of tactics White House officials employ to induce changes in lawmakers’ behavior.¶
Importantly, this conception of presidents’ 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 . For example, 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
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.
of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course,
Winners Win
Dickerson ‘13
(John, Chief Political Correspondent at the Slate, Political Director of CBS News, Covered Politics for Time Magazine for 12 Years, Previous White House
Correspondent, Go for the Throat!, http://tinyurl.com/b7zvv4d)
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone,
looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural
suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt
will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they
don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.¶ Inaugural speeches are
limit, sequester, and budget
supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the
Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck
in the rut of the day.¶ But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its
elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of
tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup
poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country.¶ The
challenge for President Obama’s speech
to be great when the environment stinks . Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something
more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor , the size of the problems facing government,
and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into
office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP .
If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat .¶ President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the
is the challenge of his second term: how
achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new
footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he
pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no
question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is
approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. ¶ How should the president proceed
then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans
to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he
He has abandoned that . He doesn't think it will
work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They
cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for
cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has
at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. ¶ Obama’s only remaining option is to
pulverize . Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to
delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force
Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least
temporarily, in disarray. ¶ This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political
could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. ¶ That's the old way.
scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In
order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in
2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an
opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition
defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers , supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.
Sample 1NC
Obama has the capital now to tackle gun control
RT 1-7-13 http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-strict-gun-control-462/
The White House is weighing sweeping gun control measures in the wake of the Newtown massacre which
would go far beyond simply reinstating the lapsed Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Washington Post reports. An
administration task force under the helm of Vice President Joe Biden is actively considering measures which would require universal background checks
for firearm buyers and establish a national database to track the movement and sale of weapons. The measures, which are supported by key law
enforcement officials, would also bolster mental health checks for those seeking to buy arms and increase the penalties for carrying guns near school
zones or providing them to minors, sources told the newspaper. The potential changes are a response to the fatal shootings last month of 20 first-graders
and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14. The Biden group, formed in the aftermath of the mass shooting,
reportedly plans to submit recommendations to President Barack Obama next month. The White House is attempting to hammer out a
strategy to deal with stiff opposition for the powerful gun rights lobbyist the National Rifle Association (NRA). Getting
support from Walmart and other gun retailers via a series of financially beneficial measures will potentially be
one means of outmaneuvering the NRA. “Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole
that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales,” the Post cited a source
who works with the Obama administration on gun issues as saying. Enlisting New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to help spearhead the public push for
stricter gun control is also reportedly in the works, the Post reports. The Obama Administration has yet to comment on the Post story. A White House
spokesman told the paper that Biden's group was currently in the middle of its review and had not yet decided on its final recommendations. The NRA
has thus far successfully lobbied federal lawmakers to stop major new gun restrictions since the enactment of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban,
which expired in 2004. The ban prohibited the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use, and banned ammunition magazines holding more than
10 rounds. But a series of mass shootings in 2012 culminating in the Sandy Hook Elementary School killing spree
has potentially provided the Obama administration with the political capital to tackle the highly divisive issue
of gun control.
Rehab is percieved as soft on crime- the aff would cost massive political capital
Robert Emerson, Professor Emeritus, UCLA Department of Sociology. Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Transaction
Publishers, 2007
On one level, pressures on the court are characteristically restrictive and punitive rather than therapeutic in nature because "public opinion"
becomes aroused primarily by "crime in the streets" and threats to public order. Hence local demands are for control and
punishment, not for treatment for sick or unfortunate children. This tendency at least partially reflects the organization and expression of
such "community sentiment" by politicians and the news media. The press tends to play up sensational and brutal crimes and to
encourage responses to "criminals" on punitive terms. Periodic press-inspired crime waves, for example, give rise to a variety of
demands for heavy penal sanctions against offenders. But in addition, many local politicians seem to feel that they can make greater
political capital out of opposing "crime in the streets" with a "get tough" policy than in advocating the
rehabilitation of offenders. Particularly when crime or delinquency becomes a hot issue, punishment and restriction seem to provide direct, simple,
and convincing solutions. Hence, when concern with the problem of delinquency becomes pronounced, the politically oriented tend to
denounce "leniency" and the "coddling" of criminals, and to urge harsh punishment for violators.(36)
Gun control is key to soft power
Nye, Professor of International Relations, Harvard, ‘04 [Joseph, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, pages 13-14] Government
policies at home and abroad are another potential source of soft power. For example, in the 1950s racial segregation at home
undercut American soft power in Africa, and today the practice of capital punishment and weak gun control laws undercut American
soft power in Europe. Similarly, foreign policies strongly affect soft power. Jimmy Carter’s human rights policies are a case in point, as were
government efforts to promote democracy in the Reagan and Clinton administrations. In Argentina, American human rights policies that were rejected
by the military government of the 1970s produced considerable soft power for the United States two decades later, when the Peronists who were earlier
imprisoned subsequently came to power. Policies can have long-term as well as short-term effects that vary as the context changes. The popularity of the
United States in Argentina in the early 1990s reflected Carter’s policies of the 1970s, and it led the Argentine government to support American policies in
the UN and in the Balkans.
Soft power preserves peace, re-builds failed states, deters rogues, and prevents terrorism
Michael Hirsh, former Foreign Editor of Newsweek, Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2002There is a middle
choice between the squishy globalism that the Bush sovereigntists despise and the take-it-or-leave-it unilateralism they offer up as an alternative. A
new international consensus, built on a common vision of the international system, is possible. In today's world, American military and
economic dominance is a decisive factor and must be maintained -- as the right believes -- but mainly to be the shadow enforcer of the international
system Americans have done so much to create in the last century, in which the left places much of its trust. It is this international system and its
economic and political norms that again must do the groundwork of keeping order and peace: deepening the ties that bind nations
together; coopting failed states such as Afghanistan, potential rogues, and "strategic competitors"; and isolating, if not
destroying, terrorists. As Henry Kissinger wrote, "the dominant trend in American foreign-policy thinking must be to transform
power into consensus so that the international order is based on agreement rather than reluctant acquiescence." Or, as
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican increasingly critical of the administration, recently summed it up, "We need friends."
The impact is WMD use
Barnett in ‘7 (Thomas, Former Prof. in Warfare Analysis & Research – U.S. Naval War College, Esquire, “The State of the World”, 147:5,
Proquest)
BAD NEWS: The problem is, of course, that neither capital effectively controls the hinterlands, which overlap precipitously along their shared,
mountainous border. There the poppy trade booms, prestate tribalism rules, and the Taliban are back in the business of state-sponsored terror, thanks in
no small part to a de facto peace treaty with Musharraf's regime. The Pashtun tribes of northwest Pakistan have been ungovernable for as long as history
records. While outsiders can effectively ally with them against perceived common enemies, as America did against the Soviets in Afghanistan, none have
effectively conquered them. And yet the Taliban are carving out a ministate within these lands, employing their usual brutal techniques. The result is,
once again, a secure sanctuary for Al Qaeda's global leadership (to include Osama bin Laden) and a training ground for motivated jihadists. WILD
CARD: The next 9/11-like attack on American soil -- especially if WMD are involved -- could well trigger the gravest
consequences for the Taliban's state-within-a-state. Americans might just countenance a limited nuclear strike in an
eye-for-an-eye moment of unleashed fury and frustration. Unthinkable? We did it to Japan under far cooler circumstances
but for similar reasons -- namely, a full-scale invasion seemed prohibitively costly in human life. Is nuking Afghanistan advisable? No,
nuking is always a bad idea. But rubble, as they say, makes no trouble, and bombing them back to the Stone Age would be a very short trip.
The disad turns the case- gun control reduces crime
SF Examiner 12-26-12 http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/12/data-clear-gun-control-works
Gun advocates are throwing around a lot of rhetoric and data about guns and violence in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, but the majority of
it does not stand up to scrutiny. One major fallacy is that gun laws do not work. Gun advocates are using distorted figures and lies to argue that since our
existing gun laws are not working, we should have fewer such laws and more guns on hand. The lies should end now. The strongest gun laws in the
United States are piecemeal acts put into place by states. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based group that
provides legal expertise for gun violence prevention, California actually has the nation’s strongest gun laws. Critics point to the high number of gunrelated deaths in the state and call them proof that these laws don’t work. But this simple-minded reading of the numbers does not delve far enough into
the realities of this complex system of laws and regulations to prove that the state’s laws aren’t working. Yes, there are a lot of deaths in California from
gun violence. But the percentage of the deaths attributable to gun violence is equal or below that of many other states, especially those with fewer
restrictions. The center points out that many of the guns used to commit crimes in states with strict gun laws were actually purchased outside of the state
or stolen. Thus, the real need is for stronger federal weapons laws. Gun control in California is obviously weakened if residents can simply drive over to
Nevada, purchase firearms, ammunition or gun parts that are illegal here, and then bring them back across state lines. The coverage gaps between state
laws are big enough to drive semi-trucks full of military-grade weapons through. A perfect example of the effectiveness of gun laws is the state of Hawaii.
That state has some of the country’s strictest gun laws and, as an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it is perhaps the hardest state to transport outof-state weapons to. Hawaii had the country’s lowest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 residents in 2011, FBI data show. One huge need is for a federal
registry of stolen firearms — a recommendation close to one from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Secondhand dealers should be required to
check any weapon against this list to reduce the flow of ill-gotten weapons through our society. Such a registry would allow law enforcement to quickly
determine where a criminal’s weapons came from — a check now often too cumbersome to do except in the most serious of circumstances. That ability
also would provide the data necessary to permanently determine the effectiveness of gun control. The idea that the state is the proper level at which to
regulate weapons possession dates back to the time when guns were transported by horse and wagon. However, since the popularization of the
automobile, the flow of weapons has changed, and gun laws have not kept pace. Within a matter of hours, a firearm bought legally in one state can be
transported to another place where it is illegal. And federal laws on the books have not even begun to close the loopholes that exist due to the ability to
purchase weapons on the Internet. Gun laws work. Now is the time to pass and enforce stronger federal gun laws to close the loopholes that result in the
annual deaths of thousands of Americans due to gun violence.
Michigan Camp files
http://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/download-the-michigan-camp-evidence/
Think Tank Search Engine
http://eresources.lib.unc.edu/eid/description.php?resourceID=221927&passthrough=no
NDCA Open Evidence Project
http://www.debatecoaches.org/resources/open-evidence-project/
Citations
AT: Political capital
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207