The Christian right goes into meltdown

Tags

, , , , , ,

NEW YORK — The US Supreme Court delivered a tacit victory for advocates of gay marriage on Monday, refusing to hear appeals on whether individual states can ban marriage between same-sex couples.

As a result, 11 more states are likely to join the 19 already permitting gay marriage, leaving only 20 to go before the entire nation is draped in rainbow equality. That means roughly 60% of Americans now live in states where equal marriage is legal.

However, as campaigners pointed out the fight isn’t over until the Supreme Court provides a ruling covering all 50 states, bringing the country to what Evan Wolfson of the group Freedom to Marry called a “nationwide resolution”.

Still, the court’s sidestepping of the issue is a huge blow to America’s Christian right and advocates for the “sanctity” of traditional marriage – many of who reacted to the decision like this…

Public opinion in the US has so overwhelmingly moved in favour of gay marriage in recent years that even the Republican Party – nothing more than a vassal for well-financed bigotry of late – was reluctant to speak out against the court’s rejection.

Apart, of course, from Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his Utah factotum Mike Lee, with the latter echoing the former in condemning the court for “abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution” and allow individual states to define marriage.

This would be the same sacred constitution Cruz now wants to amend to reverse the “tragic and indefensible” decision. Yet that was nothing compared to the collective stamping of feet across America’s heartland, as the Godly voiced their disapproval.

Take Peter LaBarbera, a social conservative activist and president of the pithily named Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, who concluded that as a result of the court’s decision Americans “live not in freedom but under tyranny”.

Allowing same-sex couple to marry was so egregious that LaBarbera even called for “civil disobedience on a massive scale”.

“God is not mocked: the Scriptures are clear that homosexual practice is an offense against both God and the very bodies of those who practice it (as is all sexual immorality),” he trumpeted.

Then there was Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain who was once court-martialed for turning up to an anti-Obama rally in uniform, and who now makes a living on Christian TV.

He reacted with bluster, reminding his followers that “sodomy is still banned by God in all 50 states” and “God will have the last word”. He added: “Every child has a right to a mom and dad. Cruel judges now deny kids’ rights in 30 states.”

The Family Research Council was equally vexed, releasing a statement saying the court had “undermine[d] natural marriage and the rule of law”.

“As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation,” the council squawked.

Focus on the Family similarly bellowed, “marriage has always been – and will always be – between a man and a woman… Ultimately, no court can change that truth”. More ominously the Faith and Freedom Coalition promised the Supreme Court that it would “reap a political whirlwind” for their inaction.

Troublingly for the GOP, the court’s decision has placed equal marriage back at the forefront of the national debate, and with a presidential election in 2016, it is not an issue prospective candidates can hope to duck – no matter how many times they deflect to “jobs” and “the economy”.

During the presidential primaries, the Christian right will expect Republican candidates to come out forcefully in favour of “traditional marriage” – anyone that doesn’t is unlikely to get nominated by the party.

Yet – and here’s the real quandary – any candidate that opposes equal marriage has almost zero chance of winning a national election. Short of praying for the Rapture, it’s a conundrum the Republican Party and its overly influential Christian base has yet to solve.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Why the US midterm elections should concern the whole world

Tags

, , , , ,

NEW YORK — US presidential elections routinely hold a global audience, with onlookers from around the world hooked on the theatre of the campaigns, the stage-managed debates and the tense denouement of election night.

In comparison, the midterm elections – held every four years (at the mid-point between presidential elections) – are far more perfunctory, comprising regional battles in which members the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected to Congress.

Yet the midterms are absolutely vital in shaping US domestic and foreign policy for years to come, with the makeup of the Congress determining how much of the current and future president’s agenda can be pushed through – whoever he or she is.

This November, Americans (or around 40% of those eligible to vote) will head to the polls, with one race in particular likely to have a huge impact, not just on the US but around the globe.

Welcome to the senatorial race of Kentucky, a state better known for Bourbon, horse racing and boxes of chicken, yet the scene of an election that could sharply define America’s approach to climate change for the foreseeable future.

Climate policy in the US has gained significant traction in recent years, with all but the most industry-tied politicians reluctant to deny the phenomenon, such is the weight of scientific consensus (many Republicans instead refuse to commit by saying “I don’t know, I’m not a scientist“).

A bi-partisan report published in June detailed the huge costs to American business of refusing to act and, though Obama has failed to pass broad legislation to counter rising temperatures, he has, through the use of an executive action, pushed through a Clean Power Plan, setting limitations on how much carbon can be emitted into the atmosphere by the country’s power plants.

Tasked with enforcing this plan is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a body much maligned by the Republicans and the corporate interests they dutifully serve. Yet left in place, the Clean Power Plan is likely to have a significant impact on reducing pollutants in the atmosphere – down 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

Enter Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s incumbent senator who has spent the past 30 years in Washington working on behalf of America’s coal industry. Should he retain his seat next month, the ageing politician is likely to become the Republican majority leader in the Senate – and the man charged with ensuring the final two years of Obama’s presidency are as uncomfortable as possible.

Republicans would also have to triumph in other states, with close races in South Dakota, Kansas and Georgia but, should McConnell become majority leader, he has already promised to roll back the emission caps, hobbling America’s fight against climate change for years to come.

Standing in his way is 35-year-old Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Party challenger, who is currently polling level with her more experienced opponent. Most commenters think McConnell has the edge, but the vote could go either way.

So how could the leader of the biggest party in the Senate stop the President reducing carbon emissions? The answer is indirectly. Obama would veto any direct attack on his policy, so instead McConnell plans to place restrictions on the EPA within routine budget bills, with any veto from the White House carrying the risk of shutting down the government.

McConnell was caught on tape outlining this strategy at an event for wealthy Republican donors in August. He said: “So in the House and Senate, we own the budget. So what does that mean? That means that we can pass the spending bill.

“And I assure you that in the spending bill, we will be pushing back against this bureaucracy by doing what’s called placing riders in the bill. No money can be spent to do this or to do that. We’re going to go after them on healthcare, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board.”

In short, McConnell could make Obama choose between shutting down the government and compromising on climate change policy. And with 10 of the hottest years on record occurring in the last 16 years, neither America nor the world has time to allow McConnell to force compromise.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Nine signs that suggest you’re about to lose an election

Tags

, , , , ,

The pattern for modern elections has now been set. Whether it be the 2012 presidential race, the recent Scottish referendum or the forthcoming UK general election, social media has turned erstwhile casual voters into hardened campaigners… sort of.

There are, however, indicators that suggest that your side might not do so well on polling day. To give you a better chance of winning, here are 9 definitive signs that your party is about to lose the election. If any of these sound familiar, prepare for disappointment:

  • Six weeks before polling day, you decide that this election is the seminal moment of your life. You will mark this historic epiphany by changing your Twitter profile and/or Facebook picture to reflect your vote.
  • You set about carefully educating yourself on the key issues of the election by watching the most inflammatory, ill-informed and reactionary YouTube clips that endorse your position.
  • You will attack any unfavourable polling published in newspapers, demanding to know the “sample size” even though it’s clearly written at the bottom of every article. You will then skillfully discredit the data by posting comments such as: “Well they didn’t ask me.”
  • You convince yourself that “biased media” is lying to voters. You post comments on the Facebook walls of the “prejudiced cabal”, decrying their duplicity before vowing never to return. Ten minutes later you return to post another series of comments.
  • You find yourself using the sentence, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but…” before detailing a nefarious plot incorporating the secret service, Rupert Murdoch and the Bilderberg group – all of whom are in cahoots to rob you of your vote.
  • You decide that voters and politicians opposing your position are mentally ill, and it’s your duty to combat their falsehoods through attacks on Twitter. Anyone posting facts is to be exposed as a traitor and agent of the state.
  • Despite being weary from a hard-fought election campaign in which you haven’t knocked on a single door or made a single phone call, you pull yourself away from your computer to go and get pissed while the results roll in.
  • The day after defeat you console yourself with the knowledge that the fight isn’t over. “The campaign begins again in earnest,” you say, defiantly. You are now on the front line, a relentless activist for a better future.
  • You then join a Facebook group investigating election fraud and sign a petition demanding the “rigged” vote is rerun.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

5 reasons why many Scots will vote for independence

Tags

, , ,

Thursday’s referendum on Scottish independence could mark the end of the United Kingdom, a 307-year-old sovereign state made up of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Recent polls show the vote will likely be close, and a “yes” vote would have huge consequences not just for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.

Why do so many Scots say they plan to vote for independence, despite economists warning against fragmentation? The WorldPost has compiled a list of five reasons below explaining why Scots may want to break away from the U.K.

They want to see the Labour Party get elected.

Voters in Scotland have traditionally been left-leaning, and the country typically returns a huge majority for the Labour Party. The center-right Conservatives, meanwhile, usually fare poorly in Scotland — out of the 59 seats contested in the 2010 general election, Labour won 41 while the Conservatives won just a single seat (the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party took the rest).

England, conversely, is far more likely to vote for the Conservative Party, which is currently in power. So despite voting overwhelmingly for Labour, Scotland often finds itself under the rule of the Conservatives. If Scotland becomes independent, so the argument goes, Scots will finally get a government of their choosing.

They want to get rid of the Conservative Party for good.

Thursday’s vote is not just about independence. For many Scots, it’s also about making sure the Conservatives never again govern Scotland.

Since the 2008 financial crash, the British government has been married to a series of draconian austerity policies, including cuts to public sector jobs and a squeeze on welfare benefits. Low-income families in Scotland have been acutely affected by these policies. According to a June 2014 report by UNISON Scotland, the country’s budget has been cut by 6 billion pounds and 50,000 public service jobs have already been slashed.

They view autonomy as a symbol of national pride.

Although many economists have argued that it is in Scotland’s best interest to remain part of the U.K., there is a clear emotional pull toward voting for self-rule. As The Economist notes, “the referendum will turn not on calculations of taxes and oil revenue, but on identity and power. The idea that Scots can shape their own destiny, both at the referendum and afterwards, is exhilarating.”

In 1999, Scotland created its first parliament, giving the country a degree of autonomy on matters ranging from education to health. However, this has only fueled nationalist desires to control every aspect of governing the country. It has also been made clear that this is likely a one-off referendum. If Scots pass up the chance to vote for independence on Thursday, they may not get another chance for generations.

They believe having autonomy would improve the economy.

The camp in favor of independence has argued that an autonomous Scotland will be better at managing its economy, particularly when it comes to taxes and the oil reserves sitting off the Scottish coast. There is also widespread opposition in Scotland to nuclear weapons, and the “yes” campaign has promised to remove the weaponsentirely from the country.

Polls also suggest that the majority of Scots want to remain part of the European Union. Even if the U.K. leaves the EU in the next few years, an independent Scotland could vote to keep its EU membership.

They have been swayed by a brilliant campaigner.

Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland and the leader of the “yes” campaign, has proved to be a hugely effective campaigner, rallying Scots (particularly the younger generation) around the push for independence. In an August poll of 505 voters conducted by the polling company ICM for The Guardian, about 71 percent of decided voters said they supported Salmond, compared to 29 percent who said they backed his counterpart for the “no” campaign, Alistair Darling. It is a testament to Salmond’s leadership (and the lackluster “no” campaign) that the vote is too close to call with only two days left.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Here’s what to expect after Scotland’s independence vote

Tags

, ,

The campaign pushing for Scottish independence has gathered considerable momentum in recent weeks, with the result of Thursday’s referendum likely to be close. Should Scottish voters choose to leave the United Kingdom, the decision will have far-reaching consequences for the people of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Even if Scotland remains part of the U.K., the small island off Europe’s coast will be inexorably changed forever.

Here’s what to expect after the result comes in.

There will likely be another 18 months of debate.

If the Scots vote in favor of independence, untangling more than three centuries of a political and economic union will not be easy, especially given the rancorous nature of the campaign. One of the most contentious issues to be addressed in the 18 monthsbetween Scotland voting for independence and becoming autonomous would be the country’s currency.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and the leader of the “yes” campaign, has argued that an independent Scotland should be allowed to continue using the pound. But Westminster has said this is not a possibility, questioning why the U.K. should agree to a currency union with a country that votes to leave.

In response, Salmond has threatened to renege on the offer that Scotland would take on a share of the U.K.’s national debt if it votes “yes” on independence. If Westminster still rejects a currency union, Scotland would have to use the pound unofficially (similar to the way Ecuador and El Salvador use the dollar) and eventually move toward the euro. However, as Paul Krugman points out in The New York Times, “the risks are huge.”

“Everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous,” he writes.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research warned this week that Scotland could fail “within a year” if it uses the pound informally and refuses to take on a share of the national debt.

The vote could galvanize independence movements around the globe.

The Scottish independence debate has captured the world’s attention, with many governments concerned that a “yes” vote could inspire independence movements closer to home.

As the BBC notes, a recent editorial in the Hungarian economic news site Portfolio warned that “Europe will in all likelihood be infected by Scottish independence … Catalonia, the Basque Country, Flanders and even Venice are keeping a close eye on developments, which may once and for all justify their own aspirations of autonomy.”

Further afield, separatist movements from Quebec to Okinawa could be influenced by a Scottish vote for independence.

The United Kingdom may need a new prime minister.

If Scotland becomes independent, Prime Minister David Cameron may be forced to resign. His government is already unpopular thanks to austerity measures, and Cameron faces criticism from many members of his own center-right party over his stance on gay marriage and Britain’s continued membership of the European Union.

Even if Cameron survives until the next election in 2015, he will likely be punished at the polls for the breakup. Either way, the prime minister’s political career could be riding on the outcome of Thursday’s vote.

Even a “no” vote could spark huge political change.

After realizing that public sentiment in Scotland was shifting toward a “yes” vote on independence, the government in Westminster quickly backed a series of measuresthat would give Scotland more control over finance, welfare and taxation — almost all matters apart from defense and foreign affairs.

Even if Scotland votes against independence, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will likely demand a similar set of measures. Some politicians are even calling for an English-only parliament to match the regional bodies in the rest of the U.K.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Boris Johnson to hold a referendum on becoming an independent country

Tags

, , ,

Boris Johnson has launched an audacious bid to break away from the United Kingdom and declare himself an independent country.

The London Mayor and prospective parliamentary candidate for Ruislip announced on Monday that after 50 years as a citizen of the Union, he had decided to hold a referendum on whether to leave the UK and become an independent state.

Johnson told reporters that he had mentally scheduled the vote to take place on February 25, 2017, and would likely decide on this “important point of national self-determination” whilst cycling across Chelsea Bridge.

Comparing his future independent self with the “Athenian democracy of Pericles”, Johnson quipped that he was expecting a “high voter turnout – 100%”.

When quizzed on why he would break away, Johnson said that he had come to resent being ruled by a Westminster government 6 miles away from his Islington home, and that he should be able to control his “own monetary policy” and “determine his own future as a proud, independent nation”.

“I already comply with EU laws and regulations,” said Boris, “so reapplying for membership should I leave the UK will be a formality”.

On matters of defence, Boris said he hoped to remain a member of Nato, though he was not prepared to have Trident missiles siloed in his garden shed.

“This piffle will all be sorted out in the 18 months between me voting for my own independence and the day I actually become independent,” said Johnson.

On the question of currency, Johnson said an independent Boris would sign a formal union with Britain allowing him to keep the pound.

When pushed on a backup plan should the Chancellor rule against a currency union, Johnson ignored the question and said he would sign a formal union with Britain allowing him to keep the pound

“I’ve appeared seven times on ‘Have I Got News For You’, I can probably run my own country,” said the Mayor, before reminding reporters that an independent Boris would be the 14th richest nation in the OECD.

“My first policy as a country would be a 3% reduction in corporation tax,” he said, before belittled suggestions that the ageing population of an independent Boris would struggle with a budget deficit. “I have considerable oil reserves,” he said.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Mi5 conspiracy theories rife in Scottish referendum debate

Tags

, , ,

As the Scottish referendum has drawn closer, so the battle lines over narrative have become ever more acute. Truth, rationality and reason have occasionally been abandoned in favour of hyperbole and spin, while online message boards creak under the weight of conspiracy theories.

As now seems standard for world events, the internet becomes a repository for alternative theories and conjecture as keyboard polemicists search for meaning in a world often far beyond their control. The divisive nature of the forthcoming vote has provided fertile ground for those convinced shadowy forces are at work, with the media a familiar target (this article will no doubt be decried as establishment propaganda).

As highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the more interesting online conspiracy theories focuses on the announcement of the second Royal baby.

Even the most paranoid keyboard tapper would baulk at the idea of Downing Street forcing the couple to conceive so that the news would fall just before the vote. But did Cameron, struggling in the polls, ask Buckingham Palace to push the news out early to bolster nationalistic fervor?

Of course, this is all good fodder for Facebook, but that doesn’t mean that belief in some form of conspiracy isn’t widespread. A YouGov poll commission by Buzzfeed earlier this week found that 26% of Scots think Mi5 is actively working to stop Scotland voting for independence – that’s one in four. A further 20% said that they didn’t know if the secret service was deliberately interfering in the democratic process. The BuzzFeed research also found that 19% of Scots believe the vote will be rigged.

Yet it’s not just bedroom activists tapping away at midnight who are indulging in possible paranoia – official figures have spoken similarly, with many trumpeting the belief that Britain’s domestic secret service is at work in Scotland on behalf of the Union.

The BuzzFeed poll was commissioned following an interview Jim Sillars gave The Independent in which the former SNP deputy leader said he was aware that at least one secret agent that had arrived in Glasgow, seemingly bent on influencing the course of the election.

“Are you so naive, that you never think that perhaps MI5 and special branch are taking a role in this campaign?” he told the newspaper. “As their function is protection of the British State, they would not be doing their jobs if they were not. There was, and probably still is, a section in MI5 that dealt with the Scottish national movement, headed by Stella Rimington, who became Director General in 1992, and is now Dame Stella.”

Then there’s JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author, who in June spoke out against independence, donating £1 million to the Better Together campaign. It was an intervention that led to an unsurprising raft of abuse via social media. Nothing new there, however outrage over the abuse was dismissed by SNP politician Christina McKelvie who subtly suggested that the vitriol was not the work pro-independence supporters but of “secret service plants”.

“The attacks on JK Rowling for her donation to Better Together were, in fact, down to a very few people whose accounts no one could trace back to having anything to do with the Yes campaign,” she said, adding: “Whoever made them – there are interesting conspiracy theorists who think it might all have been down to secret service plants – should be totally condemned. I have no time for this kind of small-minded viciousness.”

McKelvie isn’t alone. Margo MacDonald, the former deputy leader of the SNP, who died earlier this year, said that she was convinced MI5 were up to no good north of Hadrian’s Wall, penning a letter to the service’s Director General Andrew Parker last June demanding answer.

“I will be obliged if you can give me an assurance that UK Security Services will not be used in any respect in the lead-up to the Scottish referendum on sovereignty, unless, of course, the Scottish police have sufficient evidence to justify normal responses to potentially overtly criminal acts,” she wrote.

Who knows if Mi5 agents are in Scotland, special branch is tweeting abuse at JK Rowling or if Alistair Darling is an alien (the last one is actually quite credible). Conspiracies do and have happened. But should Scotland vote ‘no’ next week, expect recriminations to include plot, subterfuge and cover-ups… and, of course, complicity of the “London-centric media” in the pocket of Cameron and his Westminster cohorts.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

The 12-stage ‘evolution’ of a Richard Dawkins Twitter scandal

Tags

, ,

Richard Dawkins has once again been embroiled in a Twitter storm, the latest upset caused by the prominent atheist’s comments about aborting fetuses with Down syndrome.

Of course this is not the first time the esteemed Oxford academic has found himself the focus of a collective scolding from the social network – a pooled rebuke occurs roughly once every three months.

To prepare you for the inevitable repeat here are the 12 stages of any Richard Dawkins Twitter scandal:

  1. The eminent biologist will employ the rigid rationalism of his discipline to a highly emotive issue – the lack of Nobel prizes for Muslims or how some types of rape are worse than others. Dawkins will then share this insight with his one million followers on Twitter.
  2. A cluster of Dawkins’ devotees will debate the professor’s contention in a reasoned and scientific fashion.
  3. Someone negatively affected by Dawkins’ clinical assertion will spot the tweet and take issue with his post, replying “really?? #twat”.
  4. A Twitter user with Jesus/crescent moon as their profile picture will call Dawkins a “c*nt”, likening the biologist to Josef Mengele and/or Harold Shipman. Soon thereafter Herr Hitler will be invoked.
  5. A journalist will spot the reaction, read Dawkins’ original tweet and pen a quick article highlighting the “prominent atheist’s latest Twitter storm”.
  6. A member of the blue tick Twitter elite – a newsreader or “social commenter” – will pick up on the rumpus, tweeting how the professor’s original post was “indefensible” and how these comments are “the worst yet”.
  7. Twitter users with #reason, #doubt and #MissTheHitch in their profile will distance themselves from Dawkins, telling their 73 followers that The God Delusion author no longer speaks for “atheists/anti-theists”.
  8. Dawkins will continue to defend his position, while other media outlets pen similar hit-focused articles on the brouhaha, many highlighting his past Twitter indiscretions. Right-wing media in the US will pick up on the tempest, decrying Dawkins as the emblem of a world “abandoned by God”.
  9. People personally affected by the issue of Dawkins’ original post will pen angry responses to Independent Voices and the Huffington Post, many concluding with the line: “How can such a clever man can be so stupid?”
  10. Dawkins will issue an apology via his website for the “misunderstanding” and though he will concede his “phraseology” was wrong he will maintain his “logic” was sound.
  11. Attempting to squeeze a few last hits out of the now-subsiding “outrage”, a journalist will write a meta-piece attempting to explain the anatomy of a Dawkins Twitter scandal.
  12. Wait 90 days and repeat.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Despite the dysfunction no new party is likely in Washington

Tags

, , , , , , ,

NEW YORK — On Tuesday conservative activist and commentator Steve Baldwin penned an article for the right-leaning website Barbwire calling for the emergence of a third political party in the US, one made up of religious and fiscal conservatives that could supplant the Republican Party. Baldwin even proposed a leader for this new political coalition – Sarah Palin, erstwhile governor of Alaska and, memorably, the vice-presidential Republican nominee in 2008.

According to the activist, the thrust of this new political force would be to eliminate “all federal abortion funding, reversing Roe vs. Wade [the Supreme Court decision to legalise abortion], and prohibiting the Federal government from granting special rights to people based upon sexual behavior (laws that almost always infringe on our religious, property, and freedom of association rights).”

Of course, the notion of Palin leading an alliance of the faithful and the frugal all the way to the White House is fanciful. However the US does have a history of intermittent dalliances with third parties, while the current dysfunction in Washington, a deadlock that peaked with the government shutdown late last year – a period in which Gallup revealed 60% of Americans thought it was time for a third party to emerge – has led to rumblings once again.

Palin herself floated the idea of a third party in a recent interview with Fox News, asking, “If Republicans are gonna act like Democrats, then what’s the use in getting all gung ho about getting more Republicans in there?”

But if Washington is broke, allied to widespread dissatisfaction with both main political parties, why has an alternative not emerged? After all in Britain, a country in which divergent political opinions are far more cramped in the middle, a genuine third party has still found room to manifest in the form of the Liberal Democrats (four parties if Nigel Farage is to be believed).

Speaking from a conservative standpoint, Baldwin suggests the main impediment to a third party in the US is the fear that it will “weaken the GOP, thus allowing more Democrats to win”. It’s certainly a legitimate concern with Tory strategists in the UK currently wracked by similar speculations as to what extent Ukip will split the Tory vote in 2015.

“Although many Americans say they want a strong third party, there are a lot of reasons to doubt that one will establish itself as a long-term presence in American politics,” Andrew E. Busch, a Crown professor of Government and George R. Roberts Fellow at Claremont McKenna College, tells HuffPost. “For one thing, Americans can’t agree on what sort of third party they want.”

For Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, the prospect of a third party emerging is hampered by the existing parties’ grip on power.

“The two major parties do not do many things very well, but they are tremendously skilled at maintaining their duopoly over the American political system,” he tells HuffPost. “When a new issue or movement does emerge on the landscape, one party or the other invariably manages to co-opt it.”

The emergence of the Tea Party, a movement created in response to the 2008 financial crashes and galvanized by the election of the first African American president in US history, is a case in point.

Likewise the Libertarian movement, once an outlier in the GOP, which in recent years has been brought into the Republican mainstream, so much so that Rand Paul, the movement’s de facto leader, is expected to run for President in 2016. “That doesn’t leave a lot of creating room for a third party to emerge,” says Schnur.

According to Peter Levine, the Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service of Tufts University, the existing system is rigged in favour of a two-party system. He tells HuffPost, “as long as legislators are elected in single-member districts where the candidate with the most votes gets the seat, two-party systems are inevitable”. As such, Levine argues, a vote for a third party invariably looks wasted.

Busch agrees that the entire electoral system favors big and broad parties, and unlike in proportional representation systems, “you get nothing for coming in second, let alone third with 15 percent of the vote”. He adds: “The most successful third parties in American history fill a space and address issues that are neglected by the major parties, make a splash for a short time, draw one or both of the big parties in their direction, then collapse.”

However, Levine suggests there are exceptions, such as when strong regional parties come to prominence: the rise of the Scottish Nationalists in Scotland is an obvious example. Another exception would be during what the academic calls “moments of disequilibrium,” such as when the old Whig Party collapsed and then the Republicans arose to fill the gap.

It’s a parallel not lost on Baldwin, whose wishful Palin-led collation, he suggests, should “do to the GOP what the GOP did to the Whig Party 150 years ago”. However, without these moments of disequilibrium, Levine argues, “systems like ours produce duopolies”.

Yet if the odds are stacked against a national third party emerging, the prospect of an independent candidate being elected to the state legislature may be more likely. Earlier this year Schnur ran as an independent candidate in California for Secretary of State, a bid he ultimately lost in the state’s June primary election.

Yet despite that defeat, the academic says he believes “even more strongly” than a year ago that “an independent candidate can be elected to statewide office”. He does, however, concede it will take a candidate with “much more time and much more money than the usual campaign” in order to “convince voters to cast their ballot in a fundamentally different way than they’ve become accustomed”.

Schnur concludes: “While the political space probably doesn’t exist for a full-fledged third party, a candidate who was better prepared and better funded than I can certainly occupy the political center that’s been vacated by the two major parties.”

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

The ties between the east coast and the European game are growing ever stronger

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Football is big in New York, with packed bars for Premier League and La Liga games, plus one – soon to be two MLS teams – making their home in the city. And with Frank Lampard the latest pilgrim to follow the Mayflower, the ties between the east coast and the European game are growing ever stronger.

That has been highlighted further this week with the arrival of Arsenal, the North London Club in town to play a pre-season fixture against the New York Red Bulls, captained by former Gunners’ striker Thierry Henry – another to have made the crossing from Europe to the game’s ‘New World’.

“Football is growing in America,” Mathieu Flamini tells HuffPost. “You have a good example from today with Frank Lampard coming to sign for a team in New York. More and more Americans seem to be appreciating soccer so it’s exciting, especially for players like us who get to play in Europe. Maybe one day we’ll have the opportunity to come and play in the US.”

Playing in the MLS is something the French midfielder would certainly consider, Flamini adds.

Likewise Mikel Arteta, who has watched with interest the transfer of his friend David Villa, who preceded Lampard in signing for the Manchester City-backed New York City FC, which is due to join the MLS next season.

“I think they are growing the sport and the fan base in a very intelligent way with the MSL,” the Spanish midfielder tells HuffPost. “They are making it very attractive and seem to have the structure in place to really progress with the domestic league. It helps that they are attracting big players, which means there’s a lot of media around the game, a lot of people are talking about it. The game in the US is definitely going in the right direction, so there’s a real opportunity for players to come over from Europe.”

On Villa, Arteta was not surprised at the move, saying he was “the right age”. “I know him well and he was looking for a move like that,” he adds. “I’m delighted for him. He’s really happy and I think it’ll be a great opportunity for him here, though it’ll be a different type of pressure. I think Xavi is close to coming as well, so there’s a lot of interest in joining the league.”

Iker Casillas too, according to the NYC FC Twitter page – a Spanish invasion complimented by a lad from East London.

“You could see how the US had progressed in the World Cup,” says Abou Diaby, now an Arsenal veteran. “They did really well and had the whole country behind the team. They got to the last 16, which is really good, so the potential is there for them to succeed.”

“In terms of the size of the US market for British domestic soccer, I don’t think they’ve even scratched the surface yet,” says Tom Fox, the club’s Chief Commercial Officer. “Plus all our commercial partners, the partners who ask us to help them promote their brand, are asking Arsenal to take a look at this market, so there’s something going on here in the US and we know it can help our partners be successful.”

It’s a market that many big European clubs are attempting to exploit, with Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Roma, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Inter Milan and Olympiakos all currently muddying their boots on US soil.

“We have a huge following on social media – I think we have more Twitter followers than any other premier league club – and many of those Twitter/Facebook followers are in the United States,” says Fox.

Arsenal certainly has name recognition in the US, and not only from the NBC premier league coverage. Piers Morgan, a zealous Arsenal fan and erstwhile host of Piers Morgan Live on CNN, spent much of last season tweeting delight and disgust (mainly disgust) about his beloved team to his myriad of trans-Atlantic followers.

“Some of Piers Morgan’s comments are… very interesting,” says Flamini, with some slight unease.

So interesting he lost his show,” chimes in Fox.

Flamini continues: “Look, he’s very passionate and it’s good that as a supporter he loves the club that much… but sometimes it’s not that easy to perform and win titles, but hopefully he was happy that we won a cup last season. Maybe there will be more titles coming.”

The French holding player says that taking criticism is part of the team’s job as professional players.

“Everyone has something to say about the club so we focus on performing and not on what the fans are saying out side of the pitch,” Flamini says.

Moving on to more comfortable ground, Arsenal have a new ‘marquee’ player, the Chilean strike Alexis Sanchez, who Flamini says will add “quality to the team”.

“I met him when he was doing his medical,” says Arteta. “He was very happy to join the club; it’s a big time for him. We have to try and help him settle in as quickly as possible, but he will certainly bring a lot of quality to the squad, so we’re looking forward to having him.”

“I think he will fit in with the existing Arsenal system,” says Diaby. “He’s a very talented player, so he should match perfectly with our style of play.”

It’s a style that Arsene Wenger has developed over his 17-year tenure as manager of the club, and a way of playing that brands want to be associated with.

Swiss watchmaker Jean Richard is just the latest hoping to benefit from the association with the North London outfit.

“The fit was very easy,” Bruno Grande, the company’s MD, tells HuffPost. “Arsenal is all about style, respect, the way they play, the way the team behaves – it’s the reason why we decided to work with them. Luckily enough, they decided to work with us.”

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,630 other followers