Is The Republican Party Becoming The Whigs?

2012: Floor of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Photo taken by myself.

Since the emergence of the Tea Party in early 2009, the movement has largely been battling for political ideology within the Republican Party. Since then, it has been interesting to examine how the movement has transformed across the nation, especially within the Republican Party.

While the Establishment will never admit this, if not for the Tea Party movement and the historical wave election in 2010 (in both federal and local elections) the GOP would be in a much weaker position today.

The 2010 elections broke records for Republicans for state legislatures, local elections, and near record levels of holding 29 of the 50 state governors (expanded to 30 by 2012).

What this allowed is political "life" for the Republican party for at least ten years, until the year 2020. After the 2010 Census, all house seats must be redistricted. This process is largely held by the states and gerrymandering ran wild. Take Pennsylvania for example.

As of May, 2014, Democrats hold nearly 50% of all registered voters and outnumber Republicans by over a million voters in Pennsylvania. Yet, Pennsylvania holds safe majorities in the two tiers of the state legislator and in terms of Congressional Districts, the GOP holds a massive 13-5 advantage with only 3 or 4 seats that are competitive in a worst case scenario election year for Republicans along the lines of 2006 (Note: the GOP was actually able to gain a seat in 2012 thanks to redistricting when Democrats coat-tailed Obama statewide). This means Republicans will hold at least half of the congressional seats (9) until 2022 in a state where they are the clear minority.

This occurred across the nation after the 2010 elections. In 2012, Republicans lost by nearly 1.5 million votes in congressional district elections nationwide, yet easily and safely held the House of Representatives under the weak Speakership of John Boehner. Republicans will hold the House of Representatives until probably the year 2022.

Thus, if the GOP is not careful, the political infighting since 2010 could be catastrophic for them if it's not fixed by the 2020 elections. Recent primaries and elections show just how bad it has become. In 2013, the Republican National Committee refused to help the conservative nominee, Ken Cuccinelli, in the Virginia Gubernatorial election. If the RNC had helped, they could have won that election and given him at least a 2 point bump.

More recently this year in Mississippi, the Establishment had to recruit Democrats and launch racist campaign advertisements (that were false) against conservative candidate Chris McDaniel in order for Senator Thad Cochran to win the runoff. Essentially, the more liberal wing of the Republican party would rather have Democrats win elections than have members affiliated with the Tea Party win as a Republican. To be fair though, since 2010, it appears Tea Party candidates are only winning in more conservative states such as Texas where they crushed the Establishment in nearly all positions for the party in the 2014 primary, but the Tea Party appears to be failing in swing state elections.

The final example is what happened to Virginia in 2014 to the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Candidate Dave Brat ran such a cash-strapped campaign, Eric Cantor's campaign spent more money on STEAK DINNERS than the entire Brat campaign. Before this year, the "majority leader" position never lost in the primary. Brat may arguably even be the more liberal candidate over Cantor on certain issues, but party members have become so sick of the Establishment that they have the "throw the bums out" mentality. The closest poll had this primary with a 9 point advanatge for Cantor. Even Brat admitted the day before of the primary on the Glenn Beck Program that he needed a mini-miracle and that it appeared the race was finally within single digits (as only that one poll suggested). The Establishment panicked as it was rumored Cantor was going to become the next Speaker in 2015 yet failed to listen to the message. Now the fairly liberal California Representative, Kevin McCarthy, is the new Majority Leader.

The party will collapse if this infighting continues because numbers going into the future look bleak for the party. As the Hispanic population rapidly grows, if they continue to vote over 60% for the Democrat Party, it will become nearly impossible for Republicans to win another national election. George W. Bush was the best candidate in the GOP's history with Hispanics voting around 40% for him. In 2012, even if Mitt Romney somehow did way better than that number (when he actually did way worse) and captured over 50% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost the election.

A unified Republican party between the establishment and the more conservative wing is still going to have a hard time competing in Presidential, swing states, and border states in the years to come. A divided Republican Party can only mean one of two scenarios: The Democrats solely dominating government for the next thirty years or a legitimate third party emerging and collapsing the GOP; thus restoring the two-party system.

Both events occurred in our political history. Between 1815-1825 (although one could argue this continued until Andrew Jackson won in 1828) is known as the "Era of Good Feelings" (which is a terrible title) as it emphasizes the collapse of the Federalists, leaving only one party in charge while the eventual post-Federalist "Whigs" were just the minority.

In 1848, a small third-party was formed initially called the Free Soil Party. It was a single issue policy party that wanted the abolition of slavery. It mainly consisted of former Whig Party members but some Democrats joined as well. This new party was "so radical" and "so divisive" that one its members, Charles Sumner, was beaten within inches of his own life by the cane of another Senator on the Senate floor. Within just one decade, this "small" and "radical" party completely abolished the Whigs and the Free Soil Party renamed itself too...The Republican Party.

If the GOP is not careful, at the very least the Tea Party could form itself as a formal party and perhaps cause the collapse and relevancy of the GOP just like the party famously did to the Whigs, or it will collapse like the Federalists and become a permanent minority Whig-like party.

Republicans must do a better job at projecting their image and spread their message of empowering the individual and granting them more rights that can help everyone, not just helping the rich. They must campaign more heavily in the urban areas. They must convince and show urban voters that the historically Democratic run cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. is only falling behind compared to the rest of nation in terms of education levels, violence, and standard of living. In just a few short years, Mayor Giuliani was able to completely flip New York City.

Believe me when I say that I have never met someone my age, working their first legitimate paid job, be "happy" over how much of their paycheck goes to taxes. Yet, very few even know that money they lose from their paycheck will not be there for them when they eventually retire from the workforce. If Republicans cannot spread this message and remain unified, Democrats will dominate at least the national (and most likely the statewide) political landscape for the next 30 years.

The Mysterious Case of Bowe Bergdahl

Source: AP/U.S. Army

This past week it was announced that the United States agreed to a Prisoner of War swap for America's only POW in either the Iraq or Afghanistan War, Sgt. Bower Bergdahl, in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders that were detained in Guantanamo Bay. It's great news that we were able to secure one of our captured soldiers who is actually coming to San Antonio (presumably Lackland Air Force Base in the southwestern part of the town) to begin recovering from being held captive by the enemies for approximately five years. One of our armed forces motto is "never leave a man behind" and it is clear we have never forgotten Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

With Bergdahl coming home, some serious questions must be answered about this entire case. The first question is what events caused Bergdahl to be captured? The first allegation is that he actually deserted his post to actually search/possibly join the Taliban. One of his last emails home was "I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” After that email, apparently all he took with him as he left his base was a knife, camera, a journal, and a compass. This could very possibly be a terrible case of PTSD, however, unconfirmed reports from other soldiers who served with Bergdahl indicate something much more nefarious.

The timeline of @CodyFNfootball on twitter (who served with Bergdahl) even if only partially true is very disturbing. He is convinced Bergdahl deserted because one of his comments was he was going to go into the mountains to get to the Chinese border and all of his military equipment went missing. Prior to deployment, Cody claims Bergdahl always wanted to train with an AK-47 instead of the US military issued M-16 (or civilian version AR-15). Once they noticed Bergdahl went missing, they immediately began a search and rescue operation and local kids reported "an American crawling in bushes" as they were looking for him. Once they got to the next town, people reported an American "wanted to meet with the Taliban" and later radio traffic indicates terrorists finally picked up Bergdahl. As the rescue mission lasted for weeks, many Americans died trying to find Bergdahl as ambushes and IED attacks skyrocketed.

In one of the videos after Bergdahl's capture, he claims he got lost from his patrol and hence became a POW once the terrorists found him. This story is quite the opposite of Cody's account. Another soldier, Nathan Bradley Bethea gave his account which is very similar to Cody's timeline. An investigation must happen in order to finally determine if Bergdahl did desert his post.

What is even more disturbing is the twitter timeline of Sgt. Bergdahl's father. Bob Bergdahl made this (and later deleted) tweet:



Other tweets are just as disturbing as well such as:

@daqeqa Agree! "Democracy" is a cult in the West. I think most of afgs see law in terms of sharia not secular democracy, man centric laws
— Robert Bergdahl (@bobbergdahl) March 29, 2014

Glancing at @daqeqa's timeline clearly shows he is not a friend of the west. Now, I cannot imagine what the past five years have been for the Bergdahl family, however, these trends are clearly disturbing.

The next few questions pertain to the release of Bergdahl. Why are five senior and notorious Taliban leaders being released from Guantanamo Bay and have all ready been sent to Qatar when it was the Haqqani Network who always held Sgt. Bergdahl? While the Haqqani Network may be similar to the Taliban or Al Qaida, these are different organizations and we have Haqqani members at Guantanamo Bay.

My next questions are why was the law broken in this swap and did President Obama's recent trip to Afghanistan finalize this swap? Congress must be notified at least thirty days in advance before any detainees leave Guantanamo Bay. Congress was never notified about the "Taliban Five" being transferred to Qatar in advance for the trade to receive Bergdahl. Once again, the Obama Administration selectively chooses which laws it will follow. Negotiations should be held in secrecy instead of being open to the public, yet the law is the law and the administration could have told Congress about this deal and waited thirty days before sending these terrorists to Qatar.

My last question is as a nation, should we negotiate with terrorists? One popular misconception is America began fighting the War on Terror in the late 20th or 21st century when this statement is inaccurate. The first abroad conflict the United States was ever involved in was against Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s. The conflict helped build our navy and is referenced in the Marine hymn "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." The United States refused to negotiate with terrorists over American merchants and that has been our policy for the past 200+ years. The reason is simple. It gives terrorist more leverage in the future. Now American soldiers and civilians abroad are potentially in more danger as their capture can be used as bargaining chips to release even more terrorists. Bergdahl's swap undermines a once firm policy by western governments.

I am glad Sgt. Bergdahl is coming home. Serious questions remain though and they must be answered. This could be a terrible case of PTSD which caused him to leave his base (and Stockholm Syndrome for his father), but it could also be a case as to where he is sympathetic toward the enemy's side of this battle. Five years is a long time and if they kept him alive, he must  have at least appeared to convince the Haqqani Network that he was sympathetic toward their viewpoints. And if that is true, the television show Homeland on Showtime just became a reality.

Healthcare Scandals: The problems are just the beginning

Healthcare is the "capstone" of President Obama's Administration, although the legacy of his policies will be history's to judge. Without some massive reforms, it may become a doomed legacy. The recent news of the VA scandal is a tragedy, but not surprising. The VA's healthcare system has always lagged behind the private healthcare market, and our veterans should be getting the best healthcare available because they risked their lives to defend this country. Veterans "with serious heart conditions, gangrene, and even brain tumors waited months for care at the Albuquerque VA hospital" (Siegel, 2014). This is unacceptable, yet its government run healthcare within the United States. 
While these issues are in the Department of Veterans Affairs, it does not mean the healthcare industry across this country is immune to the same problems.

Healthcare is an issue that is personal to me and I have taken an active role about it in the political sphere since the summer of 2007. In 1999, I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and experienced first hand the benefits and the flaws of the U.S. healthcare system. While there are problems, if not for us having the best healthcare in the world, I probably wouldn't be here writing this article today.

Reforms must occur in the healthcare sector, however, the Affordable Care Act is taking the country mostly down the wrong path. The "mandate" that everyone must have insurance may actually create more uninsured than before once businesses (over 50 employees) must pay the fine as well. It is much cheaper for an individual or business to simply pay the "fine" instead of the much more costly option of making sure everyone has insurance under the new guidelines. Millions of people last year received cancelation notices which violated President Obama's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" promise.

Young people are also not signing up in the numbers needed to make the Affordable Care Act work. Earlier this year, Health and Human Services reported that just 24% of all the people who signed up on a Healthcare.gov exchange (note, this does not mean each one has a policy, they just registered for an account on the website) are in the 18-34 demographic when that number needs to be closer to 40% in order for rates not to rise (Marte, 2014). The cost of premiums has also skyrocketed for young adults across the entire nation (with the exception of four states) as shown in the chart below.
 If anything, it appears the ACA was written in a way to make it nearly impossible for the private health insurance companies to succeed, eventually forcing a single payer system. In fact, this week bureaucrats are starting to create a plan (under Sections 1341-1342 of the law) to bailout the insurance companies should they report a loss (Levey, 2014; NRO, 2014). This is "legal" as long as it's managed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That is perhaps the scariest part of the Affordable Care Act. So much of it can literally be created "out of thin air" by executive orders or by orders via the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is why mandates and parts of law have been changing constantly. These actions also bypass the legislative branch.

Throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. Last month, Oregon decided to completely shutdown its state's exchange website after being granted over $300 million for a website that never allowed residents to sign up for coverage in one sitting. The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest funded agencies in our government and its costs have tripled since the year 2000. While two wars surely factor (and justify) and rise in the VA's budget, the Health and Human Services budget is now nearly doubled the budget of the Department of Defense (Edwards, 2014).

Virtually all CBO projections about the Affordable Care Act are coming up well short of the needed numbers in order for the law to have a chance of succeeding. The problems this legislation is creating is unfortunately just the beginning. Problems in the VA system have existed for a long time and our veterans are not getting the proper care they need. Unless there are massive changes or a repeal to the Affordable Care Act (with other options used such as opening up insurance options across state lines), the care our Veterans are receiving will be coming to a hospital or specialist near you and me. Hopefully we will not wish for the days and coverage that existed before the Affordable Care Act.   

Sources:
Levey, Noam N. Critics Call Obama Funding Plan for Health Insurer Losses a 'Bailout'. 21 May 2014. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1. 

Edwards, Chris. "Veterans Affairs in the Federal Budget." CATO Institute. 27 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.cato.org/blog/veterans-affairs-federal-budget. 

NRO. "Insurance-Company Bailouts." National Review Online. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368364/insurance-company-bailouts-editors.

Marte, Jonnelle. "Not Enough Young People Bought Obamacare." The Wall Street Journal. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/not-enough-young-people-are-buying-obamacare-2014-01-14.

Siegel, Jacob. "Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital." The Daily Beast. 18 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/exclusive-v-a-scandal-hits-new-hospital.html.

Vietnam: It's Time for the U.S. to Improve Relations

This month, tensions between Vietnam and China are rising due to a territorial dispute in the resource rich South China Sea. Recently, China placed an oil rig within 120 nautical miles off the coast of Vietnam. To make matters worse, China rammed a Vietnamese vessel as it was patrolling near the newly placed rig and fired their water cannons at the vessel as well (see the video below). Protests have since sparked in cities across Vietnam over the incident. Over 15 foreign owned factories were sent ablaze in response to China's oil rig.



China and Vietnam are communist governments with both of their economies recently attempting to become more capitalistic. Yet, they are not allies. It is not always the case where communist governments are allied to each other. During the Cold War, Yugoslavia was not an ally of the Soviet of the Union.

For China, it unfortunately clear as to why it is picking on its weaker neighbor. With China's recent military buildup and expansion of their Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), they are now optimist about carrying a "big stick" and becoming the a regional superpower (and soon to be a world superpower) while attempting to gather resources within their realm. Other nations near the South China Sea such as the Philippines and Taiwan (along with Japan and South Korea further away) all have treaties with the United States with many regarding to defense of the nation's territory. Therefore, China can afford to become aggressive with Vietnam without any significant repercussions, and if it were to somehow go to the United Nation's Security Council, China could veto any action there.

It's been 39 years since the fall of Saigon and while the stigma remains for both countries over the Vietnam War, the United States and Vietnam can mutually benefit with an alliance. As the United States shifts focus toward Asia, Vietnam owns Cam Ranh Bay, a deep-water bay and perhaps the most strategically important port in Southeast Asia. The last major navy to use the port was Russia, which was over a decade ago. It's been nearly 20 years since the United States and Vietnam began normalizing relations since the war and then Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Vietnam in 2010 with Leon Panetta visiting Cam Ranh Bay in the summer of 2012.

Cam Ranh Bay is the optimal place for the United States to have military forces particularly the navy, in the hopes of containing China's aggressive expansion. While Vietnamese-U.S. relations have been slowly improving, it is time to speed up the process. Each country needs to realize they can help the other both economically and militarily. If Vietnam leased Cam Ranh Bay, both sides can finally move on from the Vietnam War and in return, the United States can protect Vietnamese sovereignty.

What the 2012 Election Results Mean

First off, I want to say I was wrong about the election. I thought it would be closer than it actually was. By mid afternoon on election I knew it looked dim for Republicans. I miscalculated the impact of the last four years on voters. Having said that, the 2012 election does provide some very interesting into future elections.

With a poor economy, record, and skyrocketing deficits under President Obama the last four years, Republicans had an excellent formula to pick up the Senate and the White House. They got neither. The 2012 results may well indicate the United States received a political realignment in 2008.

     Political Scientists like to categorize elections into four categories.

     1) Maintaining election. Partisan ideology and loyalty remains the same and rewards the “in-party” or stronger political party. This is the most common election and it maintains the status quo.

     2) Deviating Election. This is a temporary shift where political ideology and loyalty generally remains the same, however some people defect to punish a bad performance/appeal to the weaker party. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton are examples of a temporary deviation. There has never been a three-term deviation in American history.

     3) Realigning election. The stronger party takes back control from the deviation. Political ideology, partisanship, and loyalty return to the norm. John F. Kennedy in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000 are examples of a reinstatement.

     

     4) Realigning election. Partisan loyalty and ideology changes, they long lasting impact, and happen about once a generation, usually triggered around a national crisis. The two main realignments are FDR’s “Progressive Era” in 1932 and Reagan’s “Conservative Era” in 1980.

     2008 appears to have been a realignment election, perhaps triggered the economic crisis. According to Walter Burnham, realignments are almost predictable. They tend to occur at 38-year intervals. 1818, 1856, 1894, 1932 were all realignments with 1970 being another one (but hurt because of a plurality of issues in the early 70s, not fully integrated until Reagan in 1980). 38 years after 1970, is 2008.

     There are also 5 characteristics indicating a realignment election.  

1) Change in Regional Base of Party Support.

     Whigs were in both in the North and South before the civil war. After the war, the GOP was nonexistent in south. In the New Deal Era, the GOP lost a ton of support in North. Under the Reagan Era, Democrats lost the South.

2)  Change in Social Groups Base Support.

     People will go opposite directions. Pro Slavery Whigs became democrats/Anti-secession Democrats became Republican. Under Reagan, conservative Democrats became Republican.

3)  Mobilization of New Voters.

4) New Issues Divide Electorate.

     The economy generally is the reason for this one.

5) Voters Change Patterns and Thoughts About Parties.

     Party ID change is an example.

     In 2008/2012 we do appear to see a regional change in support. Once conservative states such as Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, (and to a lesser extent: Indiana) are now considered toss-ups. The toss-up states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, have easily gone blue in the last two elections. The once “hopeful” turn red states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, appear to not even be in play at least at the Presidential level. The once dominant conservative states of Arizona and Texas will be in play for Democrats around 2020 (more on that year later). Texas voter ID is nearly tied between Republicans and Democrats.

     We also appear to see a change in the social groups. Hispanics generally have always gone liberal, but Bush nearly earned half of their support in 2004. Now they have gone heavily to the Democrats. Even Cuban-Americans in Florida, known to go about 70/30 Republican, went to Obama on election night in 2012. African Americans, single women, and young Americans all heavily went blue as well.

     Speaking of mobilization of new voters. Obama captured the young Americans solidly in 2008 and 2012. According to V.O. Key, who is one of the most respected political science experts, claimed if you get voters to vote the same way in consecutive elections, you will most likely have them for life. 2016 will indicate several things, including if Republicans lost a whole generation of voters. 

     New issue dividing the electorate: Even the least politically involved people could name a few today that vastly divide this country.

     The fifth part, Obama may not have yet, especially because of 2010, but it does appear he has the other four.

     So based on this evidence, 2008 was either a deviation or a realigning election. No deviation has ever gone three terms, so 2016 will determine 2008’s fate. The other reason why 2008 was a realigning election is because of the 2012 Senate elections. If Republicans cannot win in Montana, North Dakota, (lesser extent: Missouri and Indiana), they are in trouble. The political conditions and seats up for election should have given both houses to the Republicans.

     In 2012, Republicans did weaker in some categories despite the last terrible four years. More Mormons went to Bush in 2004 than Romney in 2012. Mitt barely squeaked by the popular vote of John McCain, yet both came nowhere close to Bush’s number in 2004, which still would have lost to Obama in both elections. In Colorado, more Democrats voted on election night than Republicans, an accomplishment that didn’t even occur in 2008.

     The saving grace to the GOP may have been 2010. If not were the massive victories across the country, they may have lost the House of Representatives in 2012. With redistricting, the House of Representatives is mainly secure until the 2020 Census. Republicans now have eight years to get their act in order before they truly become the “weaker” party in realignment. The party, however, is in disarray. ORCA was a massive failure, Speaker John Boehner cannot even keep his own party in-line, and he is kicking prominent people, such as Representatives Tim Huelskamp (Kansas-1), Justin Amash (Michigan-3), Walter Jones (North Carolina-3) and David Schweikert (Arizona-5 but the district will be relabeled the 6^th in 2013) off of key committee assignments. Amash claims leadership did not even contact him before the news became public about him losing his committee position. Some Republican lawmakers even faced establishment favored candidates in the 2012 primary.

     

     In terms of the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans cannot win and will blink first. If they make no deal, they will get the blame. If there is a compromise and taxes do go up (even by a small percentage), they will lose the base. If they let Obama get everything he wants and it fails or by some miracle works, they will get the blame if it goes bad and certainly will not get the credit if the situation improves. If not careful, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs, but that may be a stretch at this point.

     The 2016 field looks promising for Republicans such as Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Remember though, the GOP establishment vehemently opposed these candidates in the primary of 2010. With maybe the exceptions of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, which GOP “establishment” candidate looks promising for the election? The bench is made up of non-established candidates. Which may be good for the GOP because the establishment choice has been 1-5 since 1976.  The only year they won was in 1988, which was probably because of the Reagan Realignment. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016, I do not see how Republicans can win.

     If 2008 was a realigning election, 2016 will go to the Democrats. If it was a deviation, the GOP will win the White House. Republicans need to get their act together and move quickly to attract new voters, but stay on principle. If the GOP cannot, they will be weak after 2020. They will not have the chance to be as strong as they were on the national level in the 1980s, mid 1990s thru early 2000s, until 2046.