Author: The American Partnership

by

Mitt Romney Character Analysis

by John MacIntyre

Widener University Political Science Major

Editor’s Note: In the following series of posts students will discuss Mitt Romney’s leadership qualities based on Fred Greenstein’s The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama.

Public Communication: As a public communicator Romney is adequate at expressing himself and debating others.  However, Romney is not able to communicate with younger generation and often comes across fake or insincere to his audience.  Romney is often criticized for his “stiffness” or “dorky” persona that turns many voters off from him.  This may be an unfair circumstance but a natural reaction to the human instincts of voters.

Organizational Capacity: Throughout his campaign Mitt Romney has proclaimed his success as a business man; which no one can argue.  Consequently, I would imagine that Romney possesses the skills necessary to organize an administration very effectively, and conduct task management to subordinates.

Political Skill: Once again I would imagine Mitt Romney possesses the necessary skills to develop a structured political organization within the executive branch.  Furthermore, Romney has managed many different situations within the business world.

Vision: One major downfall of Mitt Romney is that he flip-flops on issues in politics.  Romney has been severely criticized for taking the side on the more favorable side of the issue that will benefit him at the moment.  Romney like so many Presidents before him does not have a clear precise vision on what he wants his administration to accomplish in benefit of the American people. 

Cognitive Style: Romney is a very intelligent person and a morally upstanding person with a family and a strong religious background.  That being said Romney is considered to be out of touch with two major communities in the voting world: the working class, and the poor.  Romney often makes analogies to his life style as a wealthy man that comes across to the poor communities which affects his message.

Emotional intelligence: Many Presidents are chastised for their letting their emotions get the best of them.  Romney on the other hand is lack luster in the emotional department.  A tip for Romney would be to have some fire in his belly and create some controversy about his emotions for American politics rather than the constant gaffes he has been well known for in recent news.

by

Avoiding W to Get the W

by John Vuotto

Widener University Political Science Major

In politics it is not uncommon for a candidate to try to associate him or herself with prestigious members of their party. This happened in 2008 when comparisons were made between, then, Senator Obama and President John F. Kennedy. Former President, Bill Clinton, also accompanied Senator Obama at points in the campaign.

There was also a very clear negative association game played by the Obama administration. They successfully made John McCain out to look like a 3rd term for President George W. Bush.

That negative association with George W. Bush seems to have carried over into 2012. Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, the candidates have tried to make themselves look like the most conservative candidate. Often, the candidates mention the name of one of the most popular Republican presidents in recent time; Ronald Reagan. The numerous candidates, especially Newt Gingrich, have mentioned Reagan several times during the debates.

While the attempted association with Reagan remains popular, there has been little, if any, mention of George W. Bush. The Bush presidency was no doubt controversial but it is strange that a former Republican President who served two terms has not had more influence in the current race. It seems the candidates are trying to avoid any association with Bush because his name still turns a lot of potential voters off, especially moderates and Independents.

by

Politicians and the Deficit

By Stephen Scuderi

Widener University Political Science Major

After reading this article about Romney’s proposed tax cuts to fix  the deficit I have come to one conclusion. Politicians only care about being reelected.  If politicians really cared about solving the deficit problem for the good of the nation, they would have come to an agreement years ago. Raise taxes on the top income bracket, raise the capital gains tax, and cut federal spending. The hardest part of the negotiations should be figuring out how to raise percentages and how much money is acceptable to cut. We cannot tax our way out of the deficit nor can we cut our way out.

I am a firm believer in the trustee model of representation as opposed to the delegate model. Although politicians represent their constituents, at some level, they must represent the nation as a hole and need to act in favor of the greater common good. The sad truth is that politicians’ behaviors are caused by the voters. We have a growing deficit and there is no magic painless pill. Citizens need to stop blindly supporting politicians who promise “to cut taxes and balance the budget without drastically cutting public services.” Such an unrealistic platform will only lead to the political inaction that we are faced with today, leaving politicians scared to death of reelection. Voters hear that their representatives support tax hikes and act as if congressmen personally steal money out of their checking accounts. Citizens need to let politicians do their jobs and have faith in their judgments.

by

Threes a Charm

by John MacIntyre

Widener University Political Science Major

Buddy Roemer dropped his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination back in February to try a run for the Americans Elect and the Reform Party.  Alexis Levinson from the Daily Caller reported in “Roemer leaves GOP to seek Americans Elect, Reform Party nominations,” that Roemer jumped ship because of the lack of exposure he received as a possible Republican nominee.  Levinson reported that Buddy is gunning to be awarded the Independent nominee so he can be eligible to debate with Obama and the Republican nominee and quote “Turn this election Upside down”.  Levinson further explained that Buddy’s political strategy is gaining the support of the “plain people” in a promise to only collect “clean money”, free of Super PACs and Super donors.  Levinson concludes that Roemer’s goal is to gather the independent political parties in an attempt to create a legitimate coalition of votes to become a larger voice.

My thoughts on this article are very positive, third party politics are unfortunately cast aside to make way for the interests of the Republican and Democrat parties.  Republican and Democratic candidates often jockey for the independent voters support.  With the limitation of two political parties voters are forced to choose the extreme of both sides even though their own personal views maybe more moderate in general.  An independent candidate would afford those fence sitters with a candidate who effectively represents moderate/bipartisan views accurately and can debate this platform against the dual party system that is in place.  The 2012 Presidential debate will also take an unconventional turn, with the addition of a third party candidate.  Candidates will be forced to debate with two other candidates and be unable to ignore third party platform politics.  A third party candidate has an uphill battle in the 2012 Presidential none the less, but the addition of Buddy Roemer will create competition that will produce transparency and the best product available for the American citizens.

by

Biggest Campaign Issue for General Election

by Craig Ricks

Widener University Student

Looking forward to the November general election, it is still unclear what will be the biggest issue of the campaign.  In the past few months, the economy has slowly bounced back and things appear to continue to rise.  Going along with that, unemployment has been steadily declining and is hovering just above 8% right now.  If this trend continues, President Obama will be able to run on his success of turning the economy around and putting people back to work.  Running on that success would make it an issue that would not be as debatable.  Yes, the Republican candidate will still argue that the President has mishandled the economy, but as of right now, the facts of the situation prove that Obama is doing something right.

So if the economy is not the major issue, what will be?  A lot can still happen between now and November, but two potential issues that could gain traction are overseas affairs, mainly the ongoing turmoil between Israel and Iraq, and President Obama’s health care bill that is currently on trial in the Supreme Court.  If talks between Israel and Iran lead to no positive outcome and Israel’s threats of a strike on Iran turn to a reality, this will no doubt be a major campaign issue.  The entire country will be looking to both candidates to see how they will handle the situation.  The people will want to know what role the U.S. will play, if we will station troops in the region, and if a war could break out.  Each candidate’s opinion on this issue will weigh heavily on the minds of Americans as they take to the polls.  However, if talks persist and lead to a compromise, this will be a non-issue.  The other possible focal issue could be President Obama’s health care law.  The Affordable Care Act is considered to be Obama’s biggest accomplishment as President.  If it were to be shut down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, it could be very detrimental to the President’s reputation.  The Republican candidate would campaign against Obama’s failed law, portraying him as weak and attempting to overstep the bounds of the Constitution.  Without being able to run on his biggest accomplishment, Obama could see many votes taken away from him.

With that being said, neither of these two situations have arrived at the point to where they would become the focal point of the election.  There are a lot of “ifs” that would have to happen in order for attention to be taken away from the economy and jobs.  At this point in time, that should be the main focus of the general election unless one of the aforementioned situations arises.

by

President Obama, the Supreme Court & Health Care Reform

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here are reactions from Gregory Grossman and John Vuotto.

Obamacare in the Supreme Court

by Gregory Grossman

Widener University Political Science Major

President Obama’s “Obamacare” is finally being heard by the Supreme Court. This main issue at hand is the mandate stating that most Americans must purchase healthcare. Obamacare, as a piece of legislation, is thousands of pages. If the Supreme Court rules the mandate as unconstitutional, they then need to decide if they should save the rest or scrap the whole thing. Obama dedicated most of his first term to the legislation, and scrapping the whole thing would be a huge blow to his administration. However, taking the thousands of pages and deciphering them line by line to decide what fits and what doesn’t is not realistic at all. I believe Obamacare should be ruled constitutional. However I understand the reasons why people oppose it. Since our Constitution is “living”, we must adapt what the Founders left us to fit the present time, and taking it literally will halt our growth as a democracy.

Have Partisan Politics Entered Our Court System?

by John Vuotto

Widener University Political Science Major

Everything about President Obama’s health care law has been controversial. From the way it was passed to the actual contents of the bill, it has been the source of continued debate and ideological disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Even the name of the bill is a subject of disagreement. Depending on which Party you associate with, you may call it Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, arguments were heard in the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the law. The main part in question is the mandate that requires everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty. The Court’s decision, which is expected in the early part of the summer, could significantly affect President Obama’s chances at reelection.

But is the Supreme Court just another step in the extremely partisan system we have grown accustomed to? The Supreme Court is supposed to be the institution where politics ends and logic and careful study take over but one can argue this is not really the case. Taking a look at all of the Supreme Court Justices, one can make a decent assumption on the outcome, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the only wild card and consequently the deciding vote.

All of the conservative Justices are expected to vote down the law while the liberal Justices are expected to uphold it. Do the Justices have their minds’ made up before they even look at the complexities of a certain situation? While the Justices are expected to be unbiased it is difficult for them to do so. Someone once said about judges that the facts of the case are less important than the person deciding the case. Unfortunately, I believe this is a very accurate description of our court system.