The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors

The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors – They have been avoidable. Will they define President Obama’s presidency?

-Christopher Carroll

 

Unforced errors are the bane of a tennis player’s existence – they seem to be the bane of President Obama’s existence too.

The catastrophic opening of the Affordable Care Act health exchanges and the emergent reality that many Americans will be kicked off their current healthcare plans, despite Presidential assurances to the contrary, have given democrats and the White House headaches. These unforced errors probably could have been avoided. Instead, they could cost the President the ability to realize the remainder of his second term agenda and may cost democrats on Capitol Hill their jobs.

Rather than celebrate a debt limit victory over Republicans, President Obama and the rest of the party are ducking for cover, as Republicans and the public fume over what is seen as government ineptitude with HealthCare.gov and Americans losing their coverage. While democrats in Congress were willing to swallow a difficult pill when passing the A.C.A in 2010, they may be less willing to stand by the law now. Already, democrats are introducing new legislation to amend or delay Obamacare. Soon, the Obama administration will not only have given back all the ground gained after the government shutdown, they will be trying to lead a party unwilling to follow them.

If the problems aren’t fixed soon, congressional democrats will likely distance themselves from the President in attempts to protect themselves in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles, a possibility that White House officials fear could derail President’s remaining agenda.

****

President Obama and his staff clearly recognize how precarious their situation is. Tuesday, the President apologized to those people who are losing their coverage, a rare moment in American presidential history. While that clearly is just the beginning of the administration’s response, the most prudent way forward is not widely agreed upon.

Some democrats are angry, fearing that the White House response has been too subdued, not reflecting the dire situation that the failures have placed them in. Others, fear that by directing all their attention to the A.C.A, the White House will lose sight of its other priorities, including immigration and gun reform.

****

Regardless of how much energy and priority is devoted to the A.C.A disaster, the past weeks will remain Republican ammunition to be used against vulnerable democrats in Congressional races. While the issues must be fixed as soon as possible, the other agenda priorities must not be forgotten or else risk letting the faulty roll-out rule the public discussion long into the foreseeable future. The faster the administration can put this time behind it the better for President Obama, his priorities and for democrats running for re-election in 2014.

The administration must find a quick administrative fix, similar to that reported by the Huffington Post on Friday, to address those people who are losing their current coverage. The President cannot afford to look like a liar or misinformed. The administration must then begin pushing their agenda. President Obama must focus on immigration reform, gun reform, women’s rights, voter enfranchisement and job creation. He must help provide congressional democrats with ammunition of their own, lightening the weight that the A.C.A will undoubtedly prove to be during the election cycle.

Unforced errors happen to everyone. While they define average athletes, people and politicians, great athletes and leaders are made in response to them. Which will President Obama be?

Could a Phone Call Lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

The Power of a Phone Call: Could it lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

-Christopher Carroll

Though the country has grown accustomed to political conflict, strife and anger, conversation between foes is still possible; just not between domestic politicians.

It has been a tough time in Washington D.C. The government shutdown is entering it’s second week. The debt limit is expected to be reached October 17. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is widely known, has opened it’s insurance exchanges with a limp. Lost in the beavy of bad news in Washington, has been the progress seen in one of the most important international issues of the past decade. For the first time since the Carter administration, the Presidents of the United States of America and Iran spoke to each other.

The September 27th conversation took place by phone, President Obama from the Oval Office and President Hassan Rouhani from his car on the way to the airport following the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It marked the first time since the 444 day Tehran Hostage crises three decades ago that leaders of the two countries had spoken to one another.

The conversation, which lasted fifteen minutes, included discussion of the most contentious divisions in Iranian-U.S relations. The two leaders, writes Peter Baker of the New York Times, agreed to accelerate talks “aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.”  Presidents Obama and Rouhani also expressed their hope that a rapprochement between the two nations would transform the Middle East.

President Obama, in a statement to reporters after the call with President Rouhani, expressed cautious optimism, hoping that resolution of the nuclear issue, “obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual respect.”

The call came after a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif proved constructive. While President Obama had expressed a willingness to meet the Iranian President at a General Assembly luncheon, the Rouhani skipped the event, preferring to interact by phone to avoid political backlash at home. The fear that Islamic hardliners in Iran would provide political trouble in Iran seemed to fulfilled yesterday, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed his disapproval of the conversation.

Here in America, the news has had a mixed reception. Advocates for closer relations are excited, believing, as Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund explains, that “it helped fundamentally change the course of Iranian – U.S relations.” Others are less optimistic, believing that rather than a shift in U.S – Iranian relations, it is rather a result of the economic sanctions placed on Iran. “The economic pain now is sufficient to oblige a telephone call, though not a face-to-face meeting,” explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to the Times

What cannot be denied, however, is that this news is a welcome change in America.

****

While the talks between the two leaders certainly worries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the willingness two converse is a good, and obviously important, step towards addressing serious concerns in relations between Iran and the U.S. The President who rode into the White House preaching the importance of conversation and compromise with allies and enemies alike, is exhibiting the foreign policy he called for. While his strategies have largely failed in the realm of domestic politics, it will hopefully lead to real progress in international politics. By being willing to engage in conversation with the international community, the President might yet again show a surprising deftness of hand in foreign policy; one he seems to lack in domestically.

The President should be cautious about the way he moves forward from here. He must not be willing to sell the farm too early and give too much in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Doing so would not only allow a volatile country to arm itself with catastrophic weaponry, but would also undermine relations with Israel, still one of our most important allies, and could compromise moderate Iranian politicians in the Middle East, crippling any potential progress in negotiations. However, pursuing genuine conversation with Iran will send a message to the entire world that America is no longer going force it’s will on the world in back rooms, with the lights off and night vision goggles on. America is going to talk to it’s enemies and it’s allies, it’s neighbors, friends, and competitors, and work to not only ameliorate threats to American interests, but resolve the issues that face the worldwide community.

Americans that have grown used to political competition and conflict should take heart in the President’s actions and American politicians would do well to look toward the President’s example. Conversation between foes can become a conversation between colleagues.

The Path not Recently Traveled

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too.  Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

-Christopher Carroll

Dark days are coming. The lights may be turned off in Washington. Easy to forget in the recent Syria conflict turmoil is that America is once again hurtling toward fiscal disaster. For most Americans, it’s the same old story; more Washington ineptitude, more partisan bickering, more selfish nonsense and more political puffery.

Congress, due to return to Washington D.C shortly, is facing two major fiscal debates, reaching the debt limit and an impending government shutdown. The velocity with which these deadlines approach is going to put a great deal of pressure on Congress to act quickly, something they have not been known to do frequently.

Last week, the Obama administration announced that the Department of the Treasury will run out of money sooner than expected. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said that the Department expects to exhaust methods to postpone arriving at the limit in mid-October, putting it on schedule to immediately follow the other major fiscal fight, the funding of the federal government. Both of these fights are expected to be bloody, but having them back-to-back could make them fatal.

The fiscal debate will be a major battle. The Obama administration has said that the President will not entertain negotiation over the debt limit, insisting instead that the debt limit be raised to prevent default on previously accrued debts. “Such a scenario could undermine financial markets,” explained Lew, and could “result in significant disruptions to our economy.” Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R. – OH), expects a “whale of a fight” over the debt limit, hoping to leverage raising the borrowing limit so as to attain further budget cuts beyond what is known as the sequester.

Even before the debt limit is reached, September 30th will bring the end of the current government’s funding. Unless a budget or continuing resolution is reached before the September 30th deadline, the government will no longer have the authority to remain operational.

Similarly to their stance on the debt limit, House Republicans believe that the threat of a government shutdown provides political ammunition. Many plan to insist upon further budget cuts, to accompany those already in place by sequestration, or the gutting of the Affordable Care Act, in any budgetary deal. Many democrats want to replace sequestration in a new budget agreement, but Speaker Boehner and his caucus don’t seem to be remotely interested.

****

It is difficult to envision a way in which the Obama administration and House GOP come to an agreement on either of these issues. The administration insists that it will not negotiate with Congress on the debt limit while Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor plan on reaping concessions on taxes and healthcare. Meanwhile, it is just as hard to see the two sides agreeing on a comprehensive budget while Democrats want to replace the sequester, thereby easing the noose strangling the economy, while Republicans push for keeping the sequester and repeal of the ACA. Dark days seem to be fast approaching.

****

The dual fiscal threat facing Washington and the country presents danger for all parties concerned; Republicans, Democrats and Americans alike. Republicans must be careful not to overplay their hand. The 1995 government shutdown was far more damaging to Newt Gingrich than it was to President Clinton, and if Speaker Boehner and the GOP want to win a Senate majority in midterm elections, they cannot afford to disenchant swing voters. President Obama, meanwhile, cannot afford to be so stubborn during budget discussions that he risks tainting negotiation over the debt limit, a debate that presents more danger to the national economy than does a government shutdown.

However, the dual threat, while potentially a deadly cocktail, may actually make negotiations easier for Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The issues presented in both debates will provide more flexibility for lawmakers to trade, compromise and accommodate each other. With more assets on the negotiating table, it may be easier for Congress to resolve and avoid both fiscal disasters.

Sadly, the dual cocktail that could provide benefits to lawmakers will likely prove poisonous for the public. If the government shuts down, the country risks default on payments and damage to our international credit rating. If Obama plays the budget negotiations on the conservatively safe side, preserving Obamacare while simultaneously getting the debt limit raised, the economy will not only continue to struggle against the sequester but will be forced to burden additional tax-breaks and budget cuts. If the opposite takes place and the Obama administration is able to reach a budget plan but in doing so gives into Republican demands on taxes and Obamacare, or angers Republicans enough to prevent a debt limit increase, the nation will once again experience the economic turmoil of two years ago. None of this is even to speak of the possibility that no agreement, on either debate, is reached.

While many people chalk the latest economic distress and debate to Republican obstructionism, Democratic spending and Congressional puffery, deeming the recent trend a new phenomena is blatantly untrue.  Not since George Washington was able to hold the young nation together by himself have we seen an American nation not plagued by partisan posturing and perilous rhetoric.  Most recently, the Hastart Rule and gerrymandering have made it worse. It is now up to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Minority Leader Pelosi and President Obama to manage their caucus. Otherwise, the American people will be left in the dark.

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

-Christopher Carroll

It has been a busy couple of months for anyone who follows national security policy. This week has been no different. Yesterday, in a press conference, President Obama announced his plans to reform the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, opening the door for further scrutiny of the NSA’s practices. This follows a whirlwind of recent surveillance and security debates, starting with Edward Snowden’s disclosures and culminating with this week’s closure of 19 American embassies and diplomatic outposts. That whirlwind has gotten our politicians and citizens to finally start asking the right question: How much surveillance and security do we need and what are we willing to give up for it? The answer lies in how President Obama will gain the trust of those he governs.

****

On Tuesday, the State Department closed 19 embassies, including those in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and ordered that all non-essential, non-emergency personnel be removed from Yemen. The order came following American intelligence suggested that Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, and Nasir al-Wahishi, the leader of AQAP and a man believed to have been recently promoted to the second highest ranking official in the global organization, were planning a major attack.

The closure of the embassies has had mixed reception. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tx.) called it a “very smart call” while Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger said it was based on a “very credible” threat, “based on intelligence.” Meanwhile, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu-Bakr worried that the closures of U.S embassies was handing terrorists victories. NBC analyst and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center  Michael Lieter, criticized the State Department as well, claiming the threat is overblown “hyperbole,” coming from “reckless commentators or ill-informed or ill-spoken Hill folks,” said Leiter.

****

Regardless of whether or not the threat was appropriately responded to, the fact remains that American intelligence gathering practices have again been brought to the foreground.

American surveillance practices are by no means unique in the world. French newspaper Le Monde has reported has reported that the French DGSE has been collecting “meta-data” similar to the NSA’s PRISM program. Others, including former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker, allege that European nationals are more likely to be watched by their own government than Americans are from theirs.

Obama’s speech marks just the latest turn of events. The Snowden disclosures and subsequent uproar that followed it, along with the criticism of the administration’s alarming prosecution of “leakers,” has forced the President to address the intelligence and security issue head on.

The President intends to make the nation’s surveillance policies more transparent. He proposed creating a public advocate, or ombudsman, charged with providing a barrier to any unnecessary erosion of privacy rights and the tightening of what is allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act. These steps, he hopes, will help provide both Americans and the entire world with the ability to have “confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them,” said President Obama, as does “leadership around the world.” Will President Obama be able to gain that trust?

****

It will be very interesting to see whether these new proposals are effective and if they are even implemented at all. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R – N.Y.) feel that the proposals are incredibly dangerous and, in the words of Rep. King, are “a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility.”

Transparency is always good in a democracy. The more transparent a program, the easier it is for both the implementers of the program and those affected by it know what is allowed and expected of them.  As was seen this week in As seen this week in Yemen, the world is more dangerous now than ever before. Like a snake in long grass, enemies and terrorists can strike unseen with incredible precision and power. The Atlantic Ocean is no longer the barrier that it was in 1772 or even 1942. There are now countless ways for a small group of individuals to wreak havoc on an entire nation half a world away. Though we outspend the entire world on defense, we are no safer than we were at any other time in our nation’s history. What are we willing to do to defend ourselves?

The President should be applauded for acknowledging the controversy surrounding these programs and for his desire to make them as transparent as possible. However, he and his administration must do a better job of communicating to the nation and the world what these programs accomplish. We need to know what has been done and, without compromising national secrets, how they have been done for one simple reason: trust. .

Trust is a trait that is impossibly difficult to attain and ridiculously easy to lose. The hyper-polarized nature of today’s politics and the unprecedented low-regard the nation has for Congress will not help President Obama gain trust, nor will the President’s poor policy communication skills, his inability to seem like one of the people or his lack of military service prior to his Presidency. Nevertheless, he must find a way to gain it so as to put the surveillance problems in his Presidency behind him. If Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower told the country that these programs were vital, the country would believe him and would stop asking questions. Obama needs to find a way to earn that trust.

The President bviously must do so without compromising the safety of our diplomats, soldiers or citizens. A public advocate is a good start and must be a person who is not only skeptical of the NSA in general but is also selected in a fashion that bestows public trust upon him or her. This will likely mean finding a person who dislikes both Congress and the President and is skeptical of government oversight and military power. Maybe this person is a former Supreme Court Justice. Maybe this person is nationally respected journalist.

Whomever is picked, maybe by finding the right person to protect the people, the President will gain the respect and trust of the people. Only then will he be able to tell those he governs that they can be safe in today’s dangerous world while retaining total privacy. Only then will he be able to tell the people they can have their cake and eat it too. Whether or not it is true won’t really matter.

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

-Christopher Carroll

It is that time of year. We are once again wondering if the debt ceiling will be raised and if a budget for the 2014 fiscal year (starting in October 2013) will be passed. Once again, we wonder if the government will be shut down. The question this time is, if it happens who will have turned out the lights?

It seems like every summer, Congress and the White House begin posturing and flexing their muscle, staring down one another in an attempt to intimidate the other into fiscal submission. This year, House Republicans seem especially eager to engage in the yearly schoolyard fight over the budget and debt ceiling. Meanwhile, President Obama and the White House seem eager to avoid a Washington brawl, yet are ready to strike back if the House throws the first punch.

As many readers will know, the debt ceiling debate is a misnomer. Having nothing to do with the amount of debt that Congress can accrue in the future, the ceiling simply gives the Treasury Department the ability to pay the debts already incurred. Yet prominent Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R – Fl.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R – Tx.), and Sen. Rand Paul (R – Ky.), want to link raising the debt ceiling to defunding Obamacare, a proposal that has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans. This perennial threat is frequently the strongest tool in the Republican fiscal tool-belt, providing them with the most leverage of any common threat to lower taxes and decrease government expenditure.

A full-fledged government shutdown is a less common and much more extreme threat. The damage that a shutdown would do to the economy would be drastic.  By failing to come to an agreement on a new budget or even a Continuing Resolution, the federal government would be forced to shut down on October 1st, something that has not happened since the Clinton-Gingrich standoff in 1995.

****

Republicans seem to feel that because they control a majority in Congress, they can hold President Obama, the White House, and the Senate hostage in all fiscal matters. While this is partially true (Congress constitutionally has the power of the purse), the strategy is dangerous.

Much to the displeasure of GOP leadership and Republican strategists, most Republican Representatives are not following their lead and are willing to push hardline fiscal policies in an attempt to prevent primary challenges in their home districts from the right. These Representatives are using the debt ceiling and the government budget to prove their disdain for Obamacare and boost their fiscal conservative credentials. As was discussed in a July 20th post, this strategy joins those of many recent House Republican policies that may be good for individual Representatives but bad for the Grand Old Party and for the entire country.

House Republicans must realize that the risks aren’t worth the rewards. A government shutdown and fight over the debt ceiling would add uncertainty to both the economy and to the election year. As it stands now, very few Republican seats in the House are at risk from democratic challengers and the chances that the GOP loses the House are zero. Maintaining that majority must be of the utmost priority for the GOP. However, letting the country default on debt or letting the Government fully or even partially shut down, would add a variable to the upcoming mid-term elections that could lead to disaster for Republicans. The only way Republicans will lose the House,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R – Ok.), former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, “is to shut down the government or default on the debt.”

Democrats and the Obama Administration would surely be able to use such political battle against the Republicans in the public, showing that their obstructionism and failure to come to a workable agreement on the budget is hurting the economy and country. The President will not allow Congress to use the Affordable Care Act, the hallmark of his presidency, as a trading chip for a budget or ceiling agreement. It will be too easy for Democrats to say that Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to take health care coverage away from millions of Americans.

****

In the end, a shut-down is bad politics for everyone. The economy would suffer. Republicans would risk their large majority in the House. Democrats would benefit the most from a shutdown, but it would be at the expense of devoting time and energy to pressing debates over immigration, the farm bill and Obamacare’s implementation.

Worst of all, it would give the public even more reason to distrust their leaders. In a perfect world where cooler heads prevail, this discussion wouldn’t be an issue. Of course the debt limit would be raised, we must pay our bills or risk defaulting. Of course a budget or continuing resolution will be reached, the government must serve the country. But alas, this world is not perfect. Cooler heads don’t prevail. The lights could be turned off and the public and economy could be left to suffer. Republicans should be more afraid of the dark then they are letting on.

The Politics of Lifetime Appointments

The Politics of Lifetime Appointments – As people ask about Justice Ginsberg‘s retirement, the idea of Lifetime Appointment is no longer insulating the Judiciary from political gamesmanship.

– Christopher Carroll

Lifetime appointments are not insulating the Supreme Court Justices from politics.  We should stop pretending that it does. Unusually intense national attention on the Supreme Court, driven by recent high profile Court decisions, has left many people asking a question with serious political ramifications: when will Ruth Bader Ginsberg call it a career?

The 80 year-old Ginsberg has led the liberal-leaning Justices since her appointment to the Supreme Court in 1993. She has been the champion of liberal ideology on the Court since the retirement of Justice Stevens in 2010, himself 90 years old when he hung up the robes. But with a democratic president in his second term, many a questioning when the best time for Ginsberg to retire might be whilst ensuring a solidly left-leaning Justice takes her place. Many people are starting to think that this could be that time.

Justice Ginsberg, to her credit, vociferously disagrees, believing that she will not step aside to accommodate President Obama’s desire to fill her seat so long as she is still mentally and physically “equipped to do the job.” But, as Jamelle Bouie astutely discusses in a July 5th (link#3) Washington Post opinion piece, the questions over Ginsberg’s retirement raise an undeniable problem, the practice of lifetime appointment doesn’t seem to work anymore.

****

Lifetime judicial appointments have been a hallmark of American Supreme Court law ever since it was vociferously argued for by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78. The intention of the practice was to protect the Judiciary from the Legislative and the Executive branches of the government and the popular opinion of the public. Without strong systemic protection, Hamilton feared that Judicial Review would cease to be based upon the Constitution, compromising the important role the Supreme Court has played in the balance of power in American democracy.

Lifelong appointments have certainly contributed to the Supreme Court’s extremely stable, authoritative and legitimate history in American democracy. However, it is telling that very few nations around the world have followed the American example. Perhaps they foresaw what Hamilton and the Founders did not: that even with lifelong appointments, judicial review and judicial appointments are extremely political.

It must be noted that those people calling for Ginsberg’s retirement are making a political miscalculation. Those who believe that Obama, a centrist by the account of many liberals, will pluck a younger version of Ginsberg from the sea of qualified individuals have not been tallying recent political history and are wrong for two reasons. First, it won’t happen, and second, Obama isn’t the type.

First, passing Judicial nominations has been historically difficult for this administration due to the misuse of the filibuster. There are countless important seats on important benches left currently unfilled because nominees cannot get a vote. Harry Reid’s moaning and “nuclear option” threats have thus far fallen on deaf ears. Additionally, using the “nuclear option,” a method of changing filibuster rules in order to pass confirmations with a simple majority, would do more damage to the legitimacy of the Court than any other action.

English: Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Silent Filibuster – Senate (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Second, President Obama has shown time and again that he is both a centrist and uncomfortable with controversial nominations. Every time he has picked (or even been rumored to pick) a high profile and polarizing figure to high office, he has backed off in the face of Republican outrage – see Susan Rice’s Secretary of State saga and the President’s failure to aid Sec. of State Chuck Hagel while in the confirmation process.

These two oversights aside, the debate over Ginsberg’s retirement is showing the nation that lifelong appointments no-longer insulate the Supreme Court from politics. Today, the President’s attempt to gain as much influence as possible by appointing the youngest judges they deem qualified, resulting in a highly polarized judicial body. Today, Justices are being asked when they will step down, not because their mental facilities are failing but because it is more convenient for one or another political party. Today, if Hamilton were alive, he would cringe. Today, though the Judiciary was meant to be a-political, it has become hyper-political.

Is it time to amend the Constitution and abandon lifetime appointments? Is it time to institute an age limit for Justices? Is it time to institute an age minimum for Justices? Whatever one’s particular feeling about these ideas, none are likely to be accomplished in the near or even distant future. Amending the Constitution is a uniquely difficult proposition (link#7), made harder by the hyper-polarized nature of the Senate and the House. But acknowledging that we have a problem is the first step.

Justice Ginsberg remains an extremely capable, intelligent and brilliant adjudicator who, with luck, will continue to serve this country with distinction. If President Obama and Democrats are worried about who will replace her, they should instead focus on Congressional and Senate elections and leave the Justices charged with checking the other two branches alone. When Ginsberg needs to retire, she will. Democrats shouldn’t try to force out a brilliant mind simply because this moment is easy. This moment, with this President and with this Congress, might be exactly the wrong time.