The Missing Impact of Scandals

The discovery of a scandalous affair that makes the daily headlines historically indicates the end of a political career. After all, we elect officials who in a representative democracy are supposed to take into account the views of their constituents in order to draft legislation that is consistent with our fiscal and moral values. It would seem logical for our politicians to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny. When acts of malfeasance that demonstrate clouded judgment are discovered, a public apology and resignation from office usually follow.  

Despite these tendencies, a recent study conducted by political scientist Scott Basinger suggests a relatively short shelf life for politicians caught in scandal. Of the 250 instances analyzed since Watergate, over 60% of incumbents survived their scandal. On average, incumbents running for reelection only lost approximately 5% of their voter share in the general election and 15% in primary challenges, but the numbers vary according to the type of scandal and the strength of the candidate’s opponent. Ironically, scandals related to marital infidelity and political finance violations were least impactful on voters at the polls, while corruption caused the largest declines on Election Day. Although Basinger’s research fails to account for politicians who enter retirement in the aftermath of public embarrassment, it underscores the relatively small impact that scandals have on the political futures of incumbents. 

Earlier this month, former Governor Mark Sanford won the GOP nomination for the congressional seat vacated by Tim Scott in South Carolina’s 1^st District despite admitting to an extramarital affair in 2009. Another former congressman Anthony Weiner is reportedly contemplating his candidacy for Mayor of New York City. Polls of likely voters indicate a favorable view of Weiner in spite of the “sex-ting” scandal that resulted in his resignation from Congress. Even the infamous Monica Lewinsky affair which threatened to derail Bill Clinton’s political legacy seems to have been forgiven by the American public. In fact, Barack Obama’s successful White House re-election bid heavily relied on the former president’s capacity as a surrogate, especially in parts of the country where Bill Clinton enjoys unusually high approval ratings.

In reviewing Basinger’s research, I submit that the extent to which a politician will emerge from a scandal with political success is determined by the effectiveness of the messaging explaining the candidate’s malfeasance. Especially when it comes to non-political matters like sex scandals, incumbents can successfully win re-election if they are honest with the public and can convince them that they are still the best person for the job, regardless of the scandalous discoveries. It is for that reason that I believe an American war hero like General David Petraeus may be in an ideal position to win public office if he chooses to announce his candidacy in the near future in spite of his extramarital affair.

While scandals are never helpful to political careers, they certainly are not the death sentence that they appear to be when news first breaks of a politician’s misconduct.

Israel has a Sovereign Right to Self-Protection

The State of Israel has a sovereign right to exercise all diplomatic and military options to protect her borders. Period. This includes, but is not limited to, the security fence and unilateral action against the Iranian nuclear regime, which has openly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Fresh off of his first overseas trip as a second-term president, Barack Obama's latest attempt to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table has reinvigorated debate regarding the feasibility of a two-state solution.

Throughout her brief sixty-five year history filled with frequent existential threats from international leaders and terrorist organizations, Israel has always been willing to offer "land for peace" in order to appease her Arab neighbors. In 1967, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan failed to destroy the Jewish state, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula in a decisive land war. It was only through acts of aggression on the part of her foes that the Israelis came to control these controversial territories that have been predicated as the land for a future Palestinian state. The Arab world came together on June 1, 1967 and issued the three famous “no’s” in the Khartoum Resolution: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiation with Israel.

In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, Israel immediately withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula - a territory larger than the entire Jewish state - in exchange for peace with Egypt. More recently, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2005. With an opportunity to elect a free and democratic government, the Palestinians chose Hamas, a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department to control the territory whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. One wonders how the world expects Israel to find a partner for peace in a government that does not recognize its right to exist.

In response to a heavy influx of terrorist attacks and suicide missions from 2000-2005 known as the Second Palestinian Intifada, Israel erected a fence along its borders. This move has been heavily criticized by the international community, but it was carried out in response to a barrage of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians in coffee shops, pizzerias, malls and even public transportation. Israelis lived in fear even as they boarded the nearest city bus not knowing whether they would make it off alive. Despite all its international criticism, the fence successfully minimized the number of attacks carried out against Israeli civilians. Moreover, the only portion of the fence which separated Palestinians from their land was effectively re-routed in compliance with an order from the Israeli Supreme Court. The fence was not erected out of ill-will; it was erected out of necessity to protect innocent Israeli civilians from belligerent adversaries.

Actions taken by the Israeli government to protect her people is not a privilege; It is a right. No other nation on earth is held to the same standard of scrutiny for merely trying to protect her peoples and it is time for the international community and the Arab-dominated United Nations in particular to accept the existence of a peaceful, democratic Jewish state that if given the opportunity to guarantee the protection of its civilians will be the first to accept a two-state solution with the Palestinian people as it has demonstrated on so many occasions in the past. Until that time comes, the Israeli government has a sovereign, inalienable right to exercise whatever means it deems necessary to secure her borders and protect her people against any domestic and international threat.

Personal Experiences in Politics

3-2-1 Jump! At 120 miles per hour, I was suddenly falling 13,000 feet in a tandem jump from a 1964 charter jet. Upon reaching terminal velocity, exhilaration and adrenalin took over the hesitation that had encompassed my thoughts in every moment leading to the jump.  Fearful of even the children’s rides at Disneyland, I was not only overcoming a lifelong trepidation of heights, but I sensed a freedom that I had never experienced. Overlooking the freeways and mountain tops of Southern California gliding through the sky was the most enriching adventure of my life. All other worries were absent as I soaked in the moment, one that I would recommend to anyone who is hesitant of extreme sports. A brief clip of my first skydive can be found here.

You might be wondering why on a blog about political communication I am posting thoughts about my first skydiving experience. Aside from the sheer exhilaration, it actually provokes an interesting aspect of how politicians connect with the electorate.  Check out the biography of any public official’s website and there will certainly be a section about interests and hobbies. This is no accident. Throughout my political studies, I have come to understand the importance of connecting with voters on a personal level. Policy positions are substantive, but without making a personal connection, politicians are far less likely to be successful on Election Day. In evaluating campaign announcements in particular, one will find that a substantial portion of those speeches are dedicated to highlighting aspects of their personal lives.

Where did you come from? What was your upbringing like? And most importantly, what is your motivation for running for public office? Without answering these questions, one appears to be little more than another politician in a fancy suit. Barack Obama mastered this concept in his rapid rise to the presidency. Even in office, he continues to connect with the public in a way that has never been done before. By releasing a “March Madness” bracket for example, he offers young voters a way to connect with Barack, not Mr. President. The connection that he has successfully forged offers the White House an important tool in swaying public opinion on budding political issues by widening the window of opportunity to engage the electorate.

Reflecting on AIPAC’s Annual Policy Conference

I just returned from the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference in Washington D.C. and thought I would reflect on my experience in this post. Every year, the conference is attended by over 10,000 delegates from around the world including dignitaries, political activists, student leaders and passionate pro-Israel advocates. This year, Policy Conference was headlined by Vice President Joe Biden’s address in which he assured delegates that President Obama was “not bluffing” on his military threat against the Iranian regime.

Talks are underway between the so called P5+1 (including Germany) and Iranian leaders in which world leaders are expected to offer easing of biting international sanctions in exchange for concessions in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. I, for one, am convinced that the Iranian regime is merely using these talks to buy time as they get closer to enriching weapon’s grade uranium that can be placed upon a nuclear warhead. A nuclear armed Iran is not only an existential threat to the State of Israel; it is a threat to the vital national security interests of the free world. If the Iranian leaders obtain nuclear capabilities, it will likely trigger a nuclear arms race that would destabilize and even cripple the world’s most politically delicate region. As President Obama makes his first trip in office to the State of Israel, the issue of Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is assuredly going to be at the forefront of his discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer declared to the conference, diplomacy with the Iranians will soon come to an end either because their leaders willfully decided to dismantle their nuclear arms program or because the free world will do it for them. Congressional leaders, cabinet members and ambassadors alike all shared a similar message at this year’s Policy Conference: time is running out for diplomacy and sanctions to work.

The policy of the United States with regards to Iran is not containment; it is prevention. The red line that Prime Minister Netanyahu laid out at the United Nations last year will soon be crossed and an Iranian attack is imminent. The Israeli and American governments alike are well aware of the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian nuclear program. But the consequences of not acting are far greater.

To view the full speeches of this year’s Policy Conference, including Vice President Biden, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn and many others, please visit http://www.aipac.org/pc. I will have much more to write on this topic in the coming weeks and months, but for now, I implore you to follow the news closely as the Iranian negotiations unfold.

The Changing Face of the Republican Party through the Lens of Immigration Reform

            In November 2012, President Barack Obama handily defeated his Republican rival Mitt Romney to win a second term in the White House. In light of the devastating electoral losses among women and rapidly expanding minority groups, Republican Party insiders now recognize that the time has come to fundamentally reform the party platform in order to regain some control of Washington D.C. in the midterm elections and eventually the 2016 race for the presidency. In the meantime, President Obama has chosen to flex his political muscles on a variety of social issues at a time that seems ripe for “change” due in part to the uncertain and divided state of the GOP. In his annual State of the Union address, the president insisted that, “right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”^[i] Unlike his broad, repetitious calls for pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants in 2010 and 2011, this time the president outlined specific policy provisions like background checks, back taxes and meaningful penalties that he hopes will be a part of the package sent to the oval office to be signed into law. Obama also dedicated substantial portions of his annual address to other controversial social issues like gay marriage, gun control and climate change. For many of the same reasons, the impact that an evolving Republican Party may have on these politically sensitive matters require further exploration. For the purposes of this paper however, the impact that the changing Republican Party will have on public policy will be limited in scope to the issue of immigration reform.

            Before delving into the reasons why the time is ripe right now for immigration reform, one must first understand a brief history of this sensitive issue and recognize that there have been several albeit failed attempts in the past to deal with our nation’s illegal immigrants. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan required employers to verify the immigration status of their employees and made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. In addition to granting amnesty to over 3 million people immediately, the law is believed to have attracted over 12 million workers who crossed the border in its aftermath.^[ii] The bill failed to create a non-immigrant visa program for lesser skilled workers and therefore failed to address the issue of future illegal immigrants crossing the border. Under President George W. Bush, attempts at immigration reform failed as members of the House of Representatives and Senate were unable to reconcile the differences between their proposals, particularly on the issue of guest-worker programs.^[iii] The issue resurfaced to the national spotlight when then Candidate Obama pledged to push through Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in his first year in office. Instead, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 became Obama’s signature domestic achievement and CIR fell by the wayside.

            Now the issue of immigration has stolen the spotlight once again and after outlining the proposals that are being floated around Washington D.C., the remainder of this analysis will focus on the issue of “why now!”. At the end of January 2013, a bipartisan group of eight senators (Democrats: Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona and rising GOP star Marco Rubio of Florida) known as the “Gang of Eight”, announced a framework for comprehensive immigration reform that they will attempt to pass through congress.^[iv] The first element of the proposal includes a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who are already in the US illegally. The bill will also include an increase in the number of green cards issued to immigrants with advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from American universities and visas for low-skilled workers including the creation of an agricultural worker program, one of the elements that Reagan’s 1986 law failed to address. Moreover, the framework establishes laws that allow for increased hiring of immigrants by employers who sufficiently demonstrate their inability to recruit American workers. All of these elements are contingent on the implementation of enhanced border security measures and supplemental oversight of visa holders. Finally, these measures would also require an effective employment verification system to check the status of applicants.^[v] These are the basic ingredients that make up the recipe for comprehensive immigration reform by the “gang of 8”, but other legislative ideas have been circulated as well including from the president himself.

President Obama has been meeting regularly with members of this bipartisan group of senators to thank them for their leadership and to encourage continued progress on immigration reform. The president has even gone as far as declaring that he will offer up his own bill should congress fail to produce legislation in an expeditious manner. In early February 2013, the White House (intentionally or not) leaked President Obama’s own plan for immigration reform which included an eight year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Members of the GOP and the often speculated 2016 presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio, who is also a member of the “gang of 8”, chided the president for releasing a plan that does not include Republican input. Moreover, he criticized the apparent lack of harsh penalties for immigrants who came to the United States illegally and labeled the plan “half-baked and seriously flawed.”^[vi] Apparently the president believes that he has enough political capital to wage on this issue in announcing his own plan despite bipartisan efforts in congress to package together a plan of their own.

This brings us, albeit rather quickly, to where we are at today. The historical, legal and moral arguments surrounding immigration reform are complex and sensitive. They bring about some of the very fundamental issues that deal with the fabric that makes up the United States as a nation. After all, every citizen is an immigrant who came from a foreign country at some point over the last two centuries in pursuit of the American Dream. Today, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and the costs of dealing with them have become exorbitant. It thus begs the question: Why is now the time for comprehensive immigration reform? What is it about today’s political climate that differs so deeply from the climate of prior fruitless attempts? Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus recently underscored that question by announcing, “We must compete in every state and every region, building relationships with communities we haven’t before… We can stand by our timeless principles and articulate them in ways that are modern; relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters.”^[vii] I submit that the changing face of the Republican Party has inevitably created an atmosphere that makes the issue of immigration reform ripe. However, it is important to note that the reasoning is multi-faceted and includes other unrelated elements which will be touched upon in this analysis as well.

In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama garnered over 70% of the Latino vote.^[viii] Over the last four years, the number of registered Latino voters has increased by 26% to over 12.2 million voters.^[ix] In light of these rapid demographic changes, Republicans must come to terms with the fact that they can no longer ignore the concerns of constituencies that they have in the past, which is not limited to but includes the growing Latino population. Perhaps that might explain the GOP’s selection of Latino Senator Marco Rubio as the poster boy of immigration reform for the party. His status as a rising conservative star, a 2016 GOP Presidential hopeful and a tea-party favorite breed new light on the direction of the Republican Party in regards to immigration reform. As Liz Marlentes indicated in The Christian Science Monitor, Rubio’s changing position “could mark an important step in changing the GOP’s image to one that's more inclusive and minority-friendly.”^[x] Moreover, the argument has been made that Republicans do in fact have the most potential ground to make up with Latino voters, who were in large part brought up in traditionalist societies that taught conservative values. Granted, this is a blanket statement that does not reflect “Latinos” as a whole, but it certainly has some validity if not only that it is justified by the emphasis that the party has placed on winning over this portion of the electorate. In support of this view, attempts are being made on the state and local levels by the nation’s only Hispanic governors in New Mexico and Nevada to win over Latino support for the Republican Party and large amounts of money to recruit young political talent is pouring into the effort.^[xi] New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval are committed to the cause and recognize the potential support they might be able to garner from the Latino populations.

By the same token, Democrats are just as eager to hold onto their lopsided support from Latino constituents. While the changing face of the Republican Party ambitiously indulges Mexican Americans with their newfound tone on immigration reform, Democrats are not going to give up their electoral stronghold on these citizens without a fight. Nonetheless, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency under the Obama Administration has set new records for the deportation of undocumented citizens. In fiscal year 2012, the ICE deported 409,849 illegal immigrants, a number which has only increased every year of the president’s first term in office.^[xii] Conceivably, the GOP will use this record to diminish Obama’s reputation as a champion of sustainable solutions to immigration reform. Over the course of his reelection campaign, President Obama spent substantial time answering tough questions from Latino voters about why CIR did not occur. Even though Obama’s executive orders to defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children had an impact on the issue, the fact of the matter is that the president fell short of passing comprehensive immigration reform through congress. Thus, one could argue that he has a greater desire to make CIR a signature achievement of his second administration.

Amongst a slew of other social issues, immigration reform would not be as ripe for action by congressional Republicans if public opinion did not so strongly favor new legislation. In a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post which asked whether undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States ought to be given a pathway to citizenship should they meet certain requirements, over 70% of respondents indicated that they would be supportive of such legislation.^[xiii] The overwhelming public support for meaningful reforms to our immigration system is indicative of the changing political climate we find ourselves in. It also has made it easier for party leaders to publically support the cause. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently endorsed a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, immigrants brought to the United States as children.^[xiv] The majority leader articulated that a good place to start on the issue is with the kids. He decidedly rejected the notion that children be punished for the mistakes of their parents. The bipartisan nature in which congressional leaders have tackled the matter thus far is indicative of at least the chance that achieving comprehensive immigration reform may finally be possible in the near future.

Another important point to consider is the degree to which these position changes are strategic. It is no secret that Republicans need to make inroads with new constituencies if they hope to regain control in future elections. Thus, the political motivation behind pandering to the Latino sector of the electorate is obvious.^[xv] Popular conservative talk show and radio hosts like Sean Hannity have publically come out in favor of tackling immigration reform despite their previous opposition. Grover Norquist even went as far to declare that granting legal status to the millions of undocumented immigrants is an essential step towards fixing our economy.^[xvi]

Perhaps the change of heart comes from a place much deeper than politics. If in fact the party has truly changed its course on immigration reform, then it begs the question: what is the motivation? If one were to step away from the idea that granting amnesty to immigrants who have broken our laws is fundamentally wrong and instead reflect on the key values of the Republican Party, then in fact one might find that the GOP is at its core the party of Latino immigrants. After all, the preamble of the 2012 Republican Party Platform reads:

The pursuit of opportunity has defined America from our very beginning. This is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all. And the Republican Party is the party of opportunity…a positive, optimistic view of an opportunity society, where any American who works hard, dreams big and follows the rules can achieve anything he or she wants.^[xvii]

The ideals of individual freedom and liberty form the foundation of the Republican Party. Immigrants come to the United States in droves willing, able and desiring to be contributing members of society in order to make a better life for themselves in this great land of opportunity. Undeniably, they broke the law and for that, they deserve to be punished in some form or another. However, if one were to look at the core values that make up conservatism, they align succinctly with the dreams and aspirations of immigrants hoping to make a better life for themselves and for their children; Not for those who commit violent crimes and bankrupt our social services which are funded by hardworking, tax paying citizens, but for those willing to put everything on the line to achieve the American Dream, the Republican Party has concluded that they deserve a chance as long as they meet very specific parameters to ensure that comprehensive immigration reform is finally realized.

            To conclude the discussion of the changing face of the Republican Party through the lens of immigration reform would be incomplete without acknowledging the extent to which this political evolution could and should be explored through the lens of other sensitive social issues. On balance, many of the same arguments related to the progression of the GOP in today’s political climate could be made for gun control and gay marriage to name a few as public opinion reflects shifts that favor liberalization on these issues. The multi-faceted nature of these potential reforms ought to be deciphered exhaustively in order to fully understand the evolution of the Republican Party in today’s political climate, but those arguments deserve a book of their own.  

---

[i] Elise Foley, State of the Union 2013: On Immigration, ‘Let’s Get This Done’, Huffington Post, Feb. 12, 2013.

[ii] Laura Foote Reiff, The Winds of Immigration Reform Blow Again, The National Law Review, Jan. 29, 2013.

[iii] Darryl Fears, Immigration Reform Revisited, The Washington Post, Mar. 23, 2007.

[iv] Daniel Strauss, Obama ‘Commends’ GOP Senators on Immigration Reform, The Hill, Feb. 19, 2013.

[v] Jennifer G. Roeper, Senators Reach a Bipartisan Agreement for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, The National Law Review, Jan. 31, 2013.

[vi] Benjamin Hart, Marco Rubio Rejects Obama Immigration Reform Plan: ‘Dead on Arrival’, Huffington Post, Feb. 16, 2013.

[vii] Rebekah Metzler, Bobby Jindal, GOP Leaders Aim to Rebrand the Republican Party, U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 25, 2013.

[viii] Elise Foley, Latino Voters in Election 2012 Help Sweep Obama to Reelection, Huffington Post, Nov. 7, 2012.

[ix] Mariano Castillo, Five Reasons Why Time May Be Right for Immigration Reform, CNN, Jan. 28, 2013.

[x] Niraj Chokshi, Why Now is the Right Time for Immigration Reform, National Journal, Jan. 29, 2013.

[xi] Russell Contreras, NM, Nevada Govs Head GOP Minority Recruiting, The Seattle Times, Feb. 5, 2013.

[xii] Elise Foley, Deportation Hits Another Record Under Obama Administration, Huffington Post, Dec. 21, 2012.

[xiii] Washington Post Poll, Obama Endorsement a Drag on Path to Citizenship, Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2013.

[xiv] Emily Deruy, Eric Cantor Endorses Citizenship for DREAMers, ABC Univision, Feb. 5, 2013.

[xv] The Associated Press, Obama Says Time Right for Immigration Reform, Reading Eagle, Jan. 30, 2013.

[xvi] Editorial: Time is Right for Immigration Reform, Chicago Sun Times, Nov. 25, 2012.

[xvii] Governor Bob McDonnell, GOP Platform - Preamble, Accessed Feb. 24, 2013.