The New Republican

Many people throughout the nation are saying that the Democrats are now at a disadvantage in the House and Senate, and that they "lost" in the 2014 Midterm Elections. Though the Democratic party may have lost more seats, and though Republicans now control the House and Senate, I still think the Democrats have come out on top. Over the past decade there has been a massive shift on social issues that have created a small schism in the Republican party between their more traditional members and their youth. This post will look at a few things in relation to this statement. First we will examine the validity of that statement, represented through studies and polls, analysis of articles, and the Republican angle this past election. Second, we will discuss some reasons this change may have taken place, ranging from the influence of the Supreme Court to American perception of rights and liberties. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the new Republican, and what this means for our 2014 elected officials and the 2016 Elections.

The youth of each generation have always been more progressive and liberal. In the 60's they were the "hippies" and in the 80's they listened to music that only made the older generation cringe. In the new millennium the youth have taken on social issues through politics. The Pew Research Center finds that between 1994 and 2014 the average voter went from leaning to default on the Republican side in 1994, over to about an equally likely to vote for a Democrat by the end of the 20 year spanⁱ. Moreover, in a different article Jocelyn Kiley notes that among the youngest generation of voters (Millennials) there is an overwhelming support for liberal values at near 60% of the groups populationⁱⁱ. These numbers are representative of the average American's standing in the age group. In order to get a more relevant picture to our discussion, we should examine polling trends within the Republican party. The New York Times reported in 2012 a 9% jump, up to 37%, in support for marriage equality from Millennials who identify as Republicansⁱⁱⁱ. The article furthers that young leaders are either avoiding or expressing compromise on issues such as abortion and marriage equality due to the divided opinions, leading to an open door for the Democratic party to push forward on these issues. Eric Dolan, managing editor of Raw Story magazine noted that young Republicans tend to underestimate their liberal attitudes on social issues, showing ultimately an overall trend to be more accepting of socially liberal views in America^iv. The Republican party distanced itself from its more extreme representatives this election cycle, allowing them to take a more centrist platform and ultimately bring out results in the Midterm Elections.

The Republican Party this past cycle had many campaigns that emphasized some type of compromise, whether explicitly or implicitly. The party had nominees that supported same-sex marriage, the right to choose, and measures to fight global warming that restrict businesses. The Sun Times even puts forth that major names, such as Governor Chris Christie, is calling on House Republicans to embrace compromise^v. This exemplifies the Party's acknowledgement that in order to truly gain national support they must maintain behavior that falls in line with the platform they just won on. Over the past decade many voters from key demographics, such as youth and minority, have been disenfranchised by the Republican Party for reasons such as a lack of compromise on bills that affect them. This is the Republican leaders calling for compromise to occur and secure those votes. They are embracing certain liberal values, or at least tolerating them, as the country takes an overall shift towards that idealistic value set on social issues. We should examine some reasons as to why American values have shifted in this direction.

Arguably the biggest Supreme Court case of this century happened within its first year. On December 12 of the year 2000 the Supreme Court stopped being an unbiased arbitrator and interpreter of the American Constitution and became a political machine to decide political atmosphere in the American public. On a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of the United States awarded the Presidential office to Republican Nominee George W. Bush over his Democratic counterpart, former Vice President Al Gore. After this overwhelming display of conservatism on the court, it then took a very liberal stance over the next decade, with two of its more conservative members being so disenfranchised by the Bush administration that they became key figures in setting the liberal atmosphere of today. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was already showing strides of liberalism, such as her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), however Jeffrey Toobin notes that her dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's performance in office and its handling of the Bush v. Gore (2000) case, sent her in a full blown progressive slide^vi. After playing a decisive role in the 2000 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy also slipped from his conservative mindset to being a much more progressive, very liberal voice on the court. He is accredited with making large strides to integrate international laws and ruling into landmark decisions. Most notably, Kennedy heavily relied on both precedents set by the British Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights in deciding Lawrence v. Texas (2003)^vii. O'Connor has spoken publicly to affirm her use of foreign law in interpreting our own Constitution, and even refers to opinions she concurred on which ruled with the use of foreign law, such as Atkins v. Virginia (2002)^viii. The use of foreign law was widely condemned by conservatives, and usually ended up deciding cases in favor of ideals that were shared with the Democratic Party. These cases early on seemed to pave way for national social precedent that is most relevant in the millennial voter body.

When examining when landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) they all supported decisions that then became noticeably more popular across the country in years to come. Lawrence v. Texas not only supported a right to privacy, but was also used as a crucial referential source in the fight for marriage equality, most recently in the Supreme Courts decision in United State v. Windsor (2013) which struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. This court decision had widespread support across the nation, specifically in youth groups. Planned Parenthood v. Casey set a precedent on abortion rights that has become a key talking point for the feminist collective on women's rights in their fight for equality. Grutter v. Bollinger (also an opinion written by Justice O'Connor) was a large affirmation of affirmative action. These cases, and others influenced or reliant on them, set precedents for the liberal atmosphere amongst the youth that grew up with them as law. In their most developmental years, the Millennial Generation not only heard cases on controversial issues that were easily identifiable with a political party, but they saw that time and time again these issues were decided in favor of the more liberal view point. The Supreme Court made an effort to set a standard for what human rights and the pursuit of happiness are with the broadest scope possible in order to cater to the needs of a diverse nation. It almost inherently makes sense that a nation composed of immigrants, a spectrum of colors, beliefs, and sexual orientations, would draw on other nations and public atmosphere to decide their cases, as ultimately our country is a microcosm of the world's beliefs. The world turns to our precedent when they have legal question or ambiguity on issues of such high profile, and as a member of an international community it only seems logical we take the same course of action.

The political atmosphere has changed in the past two decades. We have watched a party begin to change this election cycle from a party staunch on its conservative ideals to one that caters slightly more to public opinion. The new Republicans had a noticeable pull this election, either winning seats or at the very least gaining widespread media cover. The platform that was appealed to was one that was moderate. This sets expectations for our newly elected officials for positions on social issues, and for compromise across party lines. Its no secret that Americans are holistically disenfranchised from politics, with voter turnout decreasing with each passing year. It's our current leaders jobs to re-inspire American faith in our government. If Republicans are smart they will hold to their new platform if they want a legitimate bid at the Presidential office in 2016 and stick to their moderate platform. This moderation won majority control this election cycle, but if the whole party had to make a shift, and sacrifice some ideals to gain those seats, it seems to me that the Democratic party ideals won out overall.

iPew Research Center, “Political Polarization in the American Public” Pew Research Center. June 12, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/appendix-a-the-ideological-consistency-scale/#

iiKiley, Jocelyn and Dimock, Michael. “The GOP’s Millennial problem runs deep” September 25, 2014. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

iiiSaulny, Susan. “Young G.O.P. Erase the Lines on Social Issues” New York Times. August 8, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/politics/young-republicans-erase-lines-on-social-issues.html

ivDolan, Eric W. "Study finds young Republicans are more liberal than the think" Raw Story. June 17, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/study-finds-young-republicans-are-more-liberal-than-they-think/

vSun Times Wires. “Christie calls on House GOP to embrace compromise” Sun Times. November 17, 2014. http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/christie-calls-house-gop-embrace-compromise/mon-11172014-323pm

viToobin, Jeffrey. "The Nine". Anchor Books. 2008.

viiToobin, Jeffrey. “Swing Shift” The New Yorker. September 12, 2005. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/12/swing-shift

viiiSchlafly, Phyllis "Is Relying on Foreign Law Impeachable?" The Phyllis Schlafly Report. May 2005. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/may05/psrmay05.html

Will Delaney

Playing Nice in the Sandbox

            In the 2014 mid-term elections Republicans have won a historic election, winning the largest Republican majority since the Truman administration (2). The Republicans control both the House and Senate now, while the Democratic Party still controls the Executive branch. At first glance many believed that the new Republican majority would dominate the government until the 2016 election. While the Republican Party controls a majority in both houses, when they bring a bill to the President and the President vetos the bill, the Republicans don’t have a 2/3rds majority to override the veto. This leaves the house with 3 options: 1. They could be stubborn and only bring partisan bills to the president and have them be vetoed and just blame the President for getting nothing done, 2. Before bringing the bill to the President, Republicans reach across the isle to get Democratic support as well, so the bill can be passed and 3. After republicans try to pass a partisan bill and Obama veto’s it, republicans re-word the bill with help from the Democratic Party so they have a bill that would go through with a 2/3rds override. This bi-partisan action would create a bill somewhat satisfactory to both parties and wouldn’t experience complications when it goes to the President’s desk. This has also left Obama with two options: 1. Work with republicans in areas of common interest like tax reform and trade or 2. Hunker down and let the Republican Party over step and lose favor with the American people in the next two years, similar to what happened to the Democratic Party in 2012 to 2014 (2).

            However after the two most unproductive congresses in our nations history I personally believe that instead of seeing more gridlock Americans will see a more efficient government overall. One way republicans were able to obtain the votes that they didn’t receive in past elections was partially because of Obama’s negative image but also many candidates had realized that the key to gaining votes was not by leaning further right but leaning closer to the middle. Republicans that won in the 2014 election are much more centered in their political beliefs as opposed to republicans who won in 2012 or 2010 (1). There is going to be a new relationship between the legislative and executive branch now that the republicans control both the senate and the house now, I believe this new environment will be conducive to progress and efficiency. Citizens in the United States will not tolerate another unproductive Congress and if nothing is done in the next two years there will be a swing right back to the Democratic party in 2016 and that doesn’t bode well for Republicans because 2016 is a presidential election as well. Republicans know that they were elected to get thing done after years of ineptitude by Congress. Obama is also looking to boost his legacy as president, although the cards he was dealt when he assumed office were not favorable, Obamas approval rating is extremely low in 2014 and one thing that would raise his approval rating is bi-partisan work on issues like healthcare, the economy, job growth and etc. (2).

            While most people my age except things to head south for the country I believe that things will shape up. It is proven that the country is more efficient when the same party does not control the legislative branch and executive branch. Republicans and Democrats realize that the country will not want to tolerate another horrible congress. Republicans campaigned on the promise that if they are given majority in the House they will be able to put this country back on the right track (1). However Republicans will not be able accomplish this goal of getting the country back on track without cooperation with President Obama. And Obama will only boost his own legacy by getting things done and he can only do that with help from across the isle. This will bring two parties, who over the past six years have been in bitter contention with each other together, which will lead to newfound productivity in our government.

1: "Newly Empowered, Mitch McConnell Promises an End to ‘Gridlock’." New York Times. November 5, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2014.

2: "Riding Wave of Discontent, G.O.P. Takes Senate." New York Times. November 4, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2014.

This Looks a Bit Like 2006

The 2014 Election to make a long story short an embarrassment to Democrats and Barack Obama, in addition to more Republicans in the House and Senate, Republicans also made significant gains in their races for governors. This election was also the most expensive election, no campaign had ever reached over 10 million in outside funding before 2010, but according to the Center for Respective Politics at least seven elections spent upwards of 13 million, this however could have been higher as some groups did not disclose the amount they spent on TV ads. This may be hard to explain, because many Americans believe congress has not been acting the way congress should, but has also re elected over 90% of it. Democrats have seen what the National Journal called a “Southern Collapse”, in 2015 there will only be 39 Democrats representing the deep south. And would be the biggest victory for the Republicans since 1928. But is this really unprecedented in the history of United States Midterms.  

Obama's approval rating has reached below 50% in fact its only 44%, which is what it also was in 2010. However Obama still won the Senate in 2010, however he lost this time around quintessential states like Iowa. In this state only 39% of voters said they approved of Obama, and in Virginia where a Democrat won the Senate only 40% of voters said they approved of Obama (Bland). This could show a key shift that wasn't seen in 2010, that even in key states where Obama won he technically remains unpopular. Perhaps Democrats have seen Obama as somewhat of a pariah, like in 2006 Democrats are finding themselves in the same position as Republicans were with Bush. In fact the overall approval rating of Democrats for Obama is 67% whereas for bush in 2006 it was 77% amongst his fellow Republicans. However what is most key when supporting a candidate is the actual act of voting, only 25% of Democrats actually went out to vote in these last rounds of elections, compared to the 44% of Republicans who showed up for Bush in 2006. Like Bush many Democratic candidates blame bush for the position they have been put in, Obama on several occasions refused to go to several key fundraising events thus prompting less support among key Democrats (Thiessen). Despite what may seem like an unprecedented loss for Obama, this remains a little bit similar to the 2006 midterm elections, a president on second half of his last term losing key states with low approval ratings sounds an awful lot like Bush in 2006, yes there may be several key differences in ideology but what connects these two presidents is their historic downfall towards the end of their final term.

Work Cited

Bland, Scott. "http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/

   the-7-numbers-you-need-to-make-sense-of-the-2014-midterms-20141119." The National Journal. Last

   modified November 19, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/

   the-7-numbers-you-need-to-make-sense-of-the-2014-midterms-20141119.

Thiessen, Marc A. Thiessen A. "Democrats can’t escape Obama." The Washington Post. Last modified

   November 3, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/

   marc-thiessen-democrats-cant-escape-obama/2014/11/03/

   ea7ee74a-6361-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html.

Moving Forward

     After dominating the 2014 Midterm Elections, Republicans arena facing a new obstacle in front of them- how to become more Liberal? Now that the Republicans have gained control of both the Senate and House, their main focus is to stay in control moving forward. By doing that, Republicans need to figure out ways to focus on becoming more moderate, yet remaining conservative. They need to maintain a good balance in-between to target more groups of people and acquire more votes in the long run to secure their positions. One issue in particular that has been grabbing peoples’ attention, and especially the Government’s is the legalization of marijuana. Obama and his administration made it clear from the beginning that he would not enforce the federal law banning marijuana. He left it up to the states, and now you can see some states ran with it and began to legalize it, and now other states are considering it after seeing the amount of money the states where it was legal were able to raise through taking the product. This is a topic that the Republicans are going to have to face sooner or later. Republicans are conservative and relatively stand on the side opposing legalization of the plant. Along with many other issues the Republicans are going to have to figure out how to become more open on certain issues that normally they are opposed to.

Unlike Obama’s administration, the last Republican administration under George W. Bush strictly enforced the law making Marijuana illegal. People began to see the connections that when a republican was in office the plant was banned,but now with a Democrat in control the government is letting states decide the fate of legalizing it or not; and now are curious to see what a Republican will do if elected as President. Since then Republicans have changed, slowly but surely becoming more moderate instead of conservative. There is sill a few republicans in the senate and house who are still very far right, but some new faces are starting to stir the pot on this issue of legalizing marijuana. For states like Washington, Colorado, and California the officials prior to the elections were mainly democratic, and now with the Republicans taking over it will be interesting to see how things change, they might just stay the same. These new, younger Republicans are starting to put the connection together to become more moderate so they can not only appeal to their party but also the people.

Recently in Washing D.C. there was vote to legalize marijuana in the Nations Capital. While little fell that congress with allow the bill to pass, Dana Rohrabacher Republican from California, has been the conservative’s strongest voice on the issue of legalizing marijuana. She is a Republican leaning closer to the middle as she joined with a group of Democrats in calling Congress to stand aside and allow the legalization to happen. Where as the representative from Maryland, Andy Harris who is also a Republican threatened to sabotage  Rohrabacher’s initiative by attaching a rider to another piece that could prevent the legalization. D.C.’s mayor Muriel Bowser thinks that there should be legislation passed to regulate and tax marijuana before Congress reviews Rohrabacher’s proposition. Others think that there are more important issues to focus on such as immigration, creating job opportunities, and working together to accomplish more. People think Congress should just let it pass and open the doors for what some are calling inevitable, which is the legalization of marijuana. In the end some officials are to worried about getting re elected or trying to impress ones respected parties. While others are working to become more moderate and willing to work with opposing party officials.

    Rohrabacher is a great example of officials working to become more liberal and moderate. She is showing not only her fellow officials her will to compromise, but also the people. The citizens will notice how a Republican is pushing for marijuana legalization and working with Democrats. By doing that Rohrabacher is sowing people who primarily vote Democratic that she too has a side of her that is leaning towards the Democrats. This way she exposese herself and coming in the next elections when people are voting they will have her in mind. She could possibly receive more votes from voters who are political must, never choosing a side always going whats in favor of them. They are a little bit of a mix of each party. Rohrabacher understands that she is going to have to become more moderate in order to continue to be elected in the coming years.

      Republicans need to take notice of Rohrabacher and what she is doing. They as a whole need to come together and realize they can continue to stay strictly conservative if they want to stay in control. Republicans have to become more liberal in order to stay in control. They ned to find ways to appeal to all people, not just some. There have been others who have began to step forward and begin the process of becoming more Liberal. They new younger Republicans are having no issues adapting to the changes, but the older ones are still finding it hard to change. Its like the saying and old dog can't learn new tricks; if Republicans want to stay in control then those old dogs better try something because there can't be a split between members of the same party. They need to expand themselves and reach out to different groups of people rather than the ones who they are familiar with. Once they figure that out, they will have a good chance of continuing to rule the Senate and House, and possibly the Presidency.

Quantity Over Quality: Americans Want Politicians Willing To Move

In the wake of any election, the eyes of the American people immediately look towards the next—particularly if the next election is on a presidential level. Elections affect how every American views the current political process, both the public and politicians alike. The public uses elections to figure out where they stand and show where they stand. Politicians see election results and use them to consider where their party is going, and what decisions would be in their best political interest, and in America’s best interest.

At this point in time, everyone is looking at the outcomes of the 2014 Midterm elections. Politicians see a country ready for change. But, the American people see something a little different.

According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, more than three-quarters of Americans say the election won’t change the nation’s direction, and that they are unconfident elected leaders will work together to solve problems. In other words, American faith in the political process is at dismal levels. The American process is at dismal levels. The American people want to see a Congress willing to compromise, but are unsure whether that will happen. Consequently, Congress’s work to either compromise (or not compromise) can have an enormous impact on the 2016 elections in a number of ways. Congress can drably live up to America’s current predictions, or this new GOP controlled Congress can go beyond America’s expectations and serve the next two years with fluidity, efficiency, pragmatism and understanding. These two possibilities would lead to drastically different electoral results in 2014, as the high-quality performance of a Republican controlled Congress would affect the public’s view of a Republican presidential candidate. In turn, these two possibilities demonstrate the current status of modern American politics—and what is needed to be successful.

Right now, the American people expect the worst (or really, more of the worst). The recently overturned Congress was the least effective and productive in American history: they were almost literally a “do-nothing” Congress.  Even though the make up of Congress has changed (fairly substantially) since these midterm elections, the American people still expect more of the same (the same being nothing). In fact, 76% of respondents from a NBC poll say there will be “just some change” or “not that much change.”  However, the question is: how will a continued “do nothing” Congress affect the 2016 elections? The answer is: it depends. If Obama takes this election as a final wake-up call for changes in his presidency, and makes the changes Americans want, in conjunction with a potentially dysfunctional Republican-controlled Congress, it may have a positive affect in 2016 for Democrats. However, if the government is simply dysfunctional across the board, across all branches, it may not affect either party positively. A divided government unable to work together reflects badly on both sides.

However, the question remains, what if Congress surpasses current expectations and works towards compromise? According to a recent NBC poll, a majority of Americans (56%) want Congress to take the lead role in setting policy for the country. Too, this poll dictated that by a 63% to 30% margin, respondents want their elected candidates to make compromise instead of sticking to their campaign positions. Essentially, these polls indicate that a majority of the American people are willing to sacrifice strict ideologies, platforms, and campaign promises in the hope of a better, more efficient, more effective government. And, most importantly, these polls illustrate that the American people want Republicans to lead this change in Congress.

If the Republican controlled Congress can achieve this, passing a variety of initiatives, I think it would shed a positive light on the party for the upcoming 2016 presidential elections. However, this will certainly entail compromise. For, although Republicans do hold a steady majority, their majority is not overwhelming—they will still need Democratic votes. Additionally, according to an NBC poll, the top 5 respondent supported Congressional actions are fairly liberal: 82% of respondents support lowered student loans, 75% support increased spending on infrastructure, 65% support Congress raising the minimum wage, 60% support emergency aid to West Africa, and 59% support addressing climate change by limiting carbon emissions. It seems—strangely enough—that Americans elected a Republican Congress to achieve Democratic initiatives. This will be a true test of Republican devotion either to ideologies and platforms, or their desire to win the 2016 election. For, I think, as stated above, if a Republican-controlled Congress continues the legislative stalemate, it will not reflect well on the GOP in 2016. Dissimilarly, if they can do this—if they can understand, moderate, compromise—they hold a pretty good chance of gaining the control of the White House next term.

I think this idea—that moderation is the key—speaks to the secret of modern politics. People don’t necessarily want to see specific things happening, they just want to see things happening. We can see this through Bill Clinton’s presidency. Bill Clinton has had some of the highest presidential approval ratings in American history—fluctuating between 55-75% throughout his two terms. However, while running for President in 1992, Clinton made a conscious decision (with the help of the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC) to break with the traditional liberal ends of the Democratic Party, and move toward a more centrist direction. This political mindset not only won him the 1992, and eventually 1996 elections, but also lent his presidency to one of the highest approval ratings in American history. For, with these centrist ideals, he made several and various decisions and bills—ranging from conservative trade agreements (NAFTA and GAAT) and liberal Welfare Reform. His moderation and neglect to adhere to a strict ideology made him well liked by the American people. With moderation, you can achieve a lot; and he achieved a lot.

Americans want to see that the government is working for them not against them—and by trying (and doing) a lot of things—a lot of different things—each person can feel touched by the government’s hand. I think in the modern era of politics, moderation is the absolute key. Moderation allows politicians to reach a wider variety of people, by achieving many and diverse things. Americans want quantity over quality (in this case, quality meaning quality adherence to political ideologies and platforms). In other words, they want a government that is willing to work for them. For, a politician who is willing to compromise is not weak or wishy-washy. A politician willing to compromise is a politician willing to do whatever it takes to move America forward. And right now, we're not going forward. 

So, perhaps both Republicans and Democrats should take some hints from the Clinton Administration—Republicans need to be moderate to show their competency in Congress, and Democrats need to be moderate to work with others in the wake of a GOP wave election. America wants politicians willing to move, both forward and around the political spectrum. In 2016, I think anyone has a bid— whoever can prove that they are devoted to moving America, will win. 

"'Like It Never Happened': Public Shrugs at Midterm Results, Poll Shows - NBC News." NBC News. Accessed November 21, 2014. 

Resnick, Eugene V. AP United States History. Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Educational Series, 2012.

New Faces, Same Washington

With the 2014 election now firmly in our rear-view it is time to look forward.  It is no secret that the Republicans won in a landslide but we do not yet know what this will mean for the country in these next two years.  We can, however, look at what the evidence is telling us will happen; more of the same.  Sadly, the Republican controlled congress in these next two year will likely look like the congress of the last two year, which means just as much dysfunction and gridlock as ever.  All this is for one key reason, “The election Determines the winners but those winners are not always compatible with one another,” (Wayne).  Translated into the 2014 election, this means that; no matter how many Republicans take seats in the Federal Government, they still need to be able to work with Obama.  As of now working together with Obama seems to be an impossibility and that will keep this Government stagnant and entirely ineffective.  

In this past campaign season many speeches were given to illustrate how this candidate will work across party lines but almost no one ran on a platform of working with the White house.  Getting anything done without bringing Obama on board in extremely difficult but nearly all candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, ran an anti-Obama campaign.  .  The reason candidates campaigned on this is because that is what Americans want.  This is clearly illustrated in recent research by Pew Institute; it shows that 63% of Americans want elected officials make compromises but 66% of Republican voters say not to compromise with Obama (Blake).  “If candidates for office are increasingly defined by and held accountable for promises they made and positions they took during the campaign, it will be harder for them as elected officials to adjust to new conditions and make the compromises necessary to govern,” (Wayne).  This tells us that because of the campaign-oriented environment nothing will get done in the coming years, as policy makers will be held to their vows not to compromise with Obama.

Now, this may only seem like speculation but with the election only weeks behind us the drama has already started.  The new Congress is not even in their seats yet and they are coming to a head over immigration.  “Obama repeated that he would issue an executive order by the end of the year and promised not to back down over Republican threats that taking unilateral action would cripple future cooperation,” (The Moderate Voice).  While Obama has his reasons for taking decisive action, the threat that it will hurt cooperation is not an empty one.  It is clear that Republicans were not making any progress on immigration but Obama has a long road ahead with this new congress if he continues to take such actions.

This issue becomes even more potent as we approach the end of the fiscal year and hope that congress can pass a new budget.  While the new members of congress will not have a part in this upcoming budget it is still a foreboding event.  “Democrats seem likely to try to block most GOP initiatives on the economy to deny Republicans victories ahead of 2016,” (White).  The American people made it very clear in this election that their focus is on the economy, so this 2015 budget will not be the last showdown over money.  And, after seeing what happened after the last major economic showdown (government shutdown) any more drama over this does not bode well for the American people.  If Republicans cannot start to work with Obama on the budget it is panning out to be a scary two years.

The new Republican led congress is not only faced with the issue of working across party line but the more challenging issue of working with Obama.  This becomes a challenging issue because of an anti-Obama campaigning season and an electorate that will hold them to such pledges.  We have seen right away that Obama does not feel he can work with this new chamber, as he will take executive action on immigration before they are even in office.  And, with the showdown over the Budget and more economic showdowns to come, not working together becomes a major liability.  The electorate has made its choice for a Republican led legislature clear but if this legislature cannot find common ground with Obama there will be nothing new about them.

Wayne, Stephen J. "Elections and Government" In Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?, 221-248. Fifth ed. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2014.

Blake, Aaron. "Republicans Are Cool with Compromise — Just Not with President Obama." Washington Post. November 20, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/20/republicans-are-cool-with-compromise-just-not-with-president-obama/.

Ordonez, Franco, and Lesley McClatchy. "Obama to Act on Immigration, Won’t Wait for New GOP Senate." The Moderate Voice. November 14, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://themoderatevoice.com/200387/obama-act-immigration-wont-wait-new-gop-senate/.

White, Ben. "Voters Want the GOP to Fix the Economy. Good Luck with That." POLITICO. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/republican-economy-2014-election-112618_Page2.html.