US Politics

Book 1- Thinking about Leadership

jasonlknoll Books, US Politics

Note: This is the first book for the Politics & IR book club that I wrote about in August. 

I originally chose Thinking about Leadership by Nannerl Keohane for two main reasons: 1) I follow politics and sometimes write about my elected representatives/leaders here on my blog, and 2) I wanted to see if leadership as applied to individual leaders could also be applied to nations.

Part of my prior knowledge of leadership was based on my experience in the US Army.  The first letter of each of the seven army values– Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage- spell out leadership.  Additionally, as an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer, or for laymen, a sergeant), part of our creed was “All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership.”  When one takes those values and ideas to heart, one begins forming a certain notion of leadership (i.e. lead by example).  The concepts of responsibility and putting others’ needs before one’s own become important and a part of a way of life.  Going into this book, then, I had ideas about leadership based on my experiences, but hadn’t really thought about the theory behind it.

Rather than go through the book chapter by chapter, I want to touch on what I feel were some of the more intriguing aspects of it, beginning with Keohane’s definition of leadership.  She brings together two activities required for leadership- “Leaders determine or clarify goals for a group of individuals and bring together the energies of members of that group to accomplish those goals.” (p. 23)  She also points out that it is more beneficial to think in terms of “A leader is…” rather than “The leader of…” when thinking about leadership.

Leadership, however, does not necessarily mean power.  While leaders usually use hard or soft power to achieve their goals, there can be limits to their power due to the institutional context or the influence of other actors.  Conversely, a person can have a lot of power or influence over their group, but they may be poor leaders.  This leads to an important question- is there a difference between leading and wielding power?  In my mind, this is an opportunity to apply these concepts to nations, using the United States as the example.

With the world’s largest economy and largest military, the United States has a considerable amount of power and has not been afraid to use it.  If there is a difference, however, between leading and wielding power, then it is possible that the United States is not necessarily a global leader.  Additionally, if a nation’s leadership is based on the premise of “lead by example,” then the United States may not be seen as a global leader. Examples of where the US falls short in this role can be found in American environmental policy and its dysfunctional, polarized political system.  If a nation is not a leader in certain areas, however, does that mean it is not an overall global leader?  Additionally, if the United States (due to its considerable power) is sometimes able to bring other nations together to achieve a set of goals, is it considered a global leader?

One of the aspects I really liked about Keohane’s book was her discussion of followers.  I had never really thought about the role of followers in leadership before, so for me this was an enlightening chapter.  When it comes down to it, leaders cannot exist without followers.  The question for leaders then is how to get accepted by followers.  Leaders must realize that followers can influence through support or through opposition.  Finally, when considering different levels of leadership, one must not forget that a leader can simultaneously be a follower.

Keohane also devotes a chapter to gender and leadership, and asks an important question- why aren’t there more women leaders today?  I think it starts with how women are treated around the world.  Examining, the Millennium Development Goals, one learns that improving the lives of women will make the world a better place.  Promoting gender equality, improving access to education, and giving women better maternal health care (all MDG’s) would hopefully lead to more opportunities to be leaders.  In her conclusion to the book, Keohane asks if leadership can be taught; if it can, then perhaps one solution would be to teach females about leadership and put them in leadership positions throughout their education.  Speaking from personal experience, I make it a point to put my female students in leadership positions for our Model UN team, either as a co-president or a head delegate.  It might be small, but hopefully it’s a good start.  What else can we do to encourage females to be leaders?

The final aspect of Keohane’s book I want to discuss is her section about leadership and democracy.  The conundrum of democratic leadership is that “all democracies face the dilemma of ensuring that the work of leadership gets done without allowing leaders to accumulate privilege and perpetuate their power.” (173)  In other words, leaders must have power, but not too much power.  If they want to stay in that position of leadership, they also need to gain support, not just from followers, which can lead to another dilemma- distortion of information.  Both problems, accumulation of power and privilege and distortion of information, can have a negative impact on the democratic process.  This is where citizens in a democracy have the opportunity to play an important role- holding leaders accountable.  So how can citizens hold elected officials and other leaders accountable?  Voting?  Writing your representative or political party?  Running for office?  Or, for what it’s worth, given the accumulation of wealth, privilege, and power of our elected officials and leaders, is it still possible in the United States to hold them accountable?

To close, a few questions for you if you read the book: 1) How did your ideas of leadership relate with Keohane’s definition of leadership? 2) Is it possible to apply the theory of leadership by individuals to leadership by nations, or do we need to have a different construct?  3) What section of the book did you find most thought-provoking?

The next book up for discussion at the end of this month (if I can get back on schedule) is On the Muslim Question, by Anne Norton.

Thanks for reading.

A Smorgasbord of Stories Surrounding Syria

jasonlknoll US Politics

Given the recent debate over whether or not the US should conduct airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria, I thought I would provide you with some of the more interesting/useful stories from the past few days.

1. “9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask,” from Max Fisher at The Washington Post.  Good starting place if you want the quick but useful basics.  Includes information about Russia and Iran, as well as chemical weapons.

2. “The Legal Consequences of Illegal Wars,” by David Kaye for Foreign Affairs.  Provocative piece that should get the reader thinking about issues concerning legality, morality, and legitimacy.

3. Speaking of legality, this piece by Louis Charbonneau from Reuters discusses the issue from the perspective of the United Nations.  The US needs to be careful of foregoing multilateralism for unilateralism once again in the Middle East.

4. “Count on Congress,” by William G. Howell for Foreign Affairs.  Short piece about the role of Congress in the debate.

5. One would hope that the respectable members of Congress will make an informed decision concerning US airstrikes.  Naturally, part of that decision should be based on the information gleaned from the testimonies of Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey during the hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC).  Or, they could just gamble and play poker, as Sen. John McCain did today.

6. The SFRC “reached an agreement late Tuesday on wording of a new resolution authorizing U.S. military force against the Syrian government.”  There’s still more to the legislative process, but this is a start.

7. Finally, after the experts and legislators have spoken, where does the US public fit in to this debate?  According to the Pew Research Center, more people oppose airstrikes than support them.

Obviously there are a number of factors that need to be considered when making a decision as serious as military action.  Some of those variables are known only to top-level officials.  To what extent, however, will Congress listen to the voice of the people when making their decision?   Finally, what role will international law play in all of this?

Thanks for reading.

Foreign Policy Observations and Advice from Sen. Russ Feingold

jasonlknoll Books, US Politics

This past spring I checked out from the public library Russ Feingold’s book, While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post 9/11 Era, and as soon as I finished it, I went out and bought my own copy.  Throughout the book, Feingold, the former Democratic US Senator for my state, Wisconsin, gives an interesting behind-the-scenes account of Washington after 9/11 and his time as a member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  As he recounts his days as a politician, he simultaneously makes observations and doles out advice for American foreign policy.

One of the main themes of the book is the necessity of the American people and government to be more aware of foreign affairs.  Towards the beginning of the book, Feingold quotes a 1937 speech by Winston Churchill, during which the former British Prime Minister states, “[Our] fate…depends on what may happen in the world, on what other countries do, for good or for ill.” (16)  Seventy-six years later, that advice is still applicable, if not more so, given our increasingly interconnected world.  In his numerous discussions of listening sessions, Feingold mentions how often constituents’ questions and comments focused on domestic issues as opposed to global ones.  Eventually we learn that political conversations at all levels focused mostly on domestic affairs, and that “there is little expectation within the Senate that senators should know much about foreign issues; expectations are even lower among the public as well.” (236)  Additionally, he asserts that people living in other countries know more about Americans, than we do about them.  This leads to the important conclusion that the US will experience serious repercussions for ignoring the rest of the world.  Not only will deliberate ignorance have a detrimental affect on our standing in the world, but it will also have negative consequences for our national security.

This leads us to the second theme, his advice on how to correct this problem and get America back on the right path.  I want to focus on two of his proposals- learning at least one foreign language, and the importance of public diplomacy.  Sen. Feingold devotes roughly four pages to the issue of learning a foreign language.  I do not know why this is not more of a priority in our education system, although I can guess it is because the US borders only two countries- Canada and Mexico- and therefore learning another language has never really been seen as a necessity.  Last spring, I traveled to Germany as part of an exchange program between my high school and a Gesamtschule.  I was amazed at how early students there begin learning English.  On top of that, many of them usually learn a third language.  Of course, I can see why learning a foreign language might be a necessity in Europe, given the fact that any one country borders many different countries.  As globalization continues, it is imperative that Americans learn foreign languages.  If we want to conduct business in other countries, study overseas, or even just learn about another culture, learning a foreign language is crucial.

In addition to learning a foreign language, Feingold advocates for the importance of public diplomacy.  While he states that lawmakers and diplomats need to be “engaged and informed about world affairs,” we also need regular citizens to travel overseas to cultivate relationships and understanding between the US and other countries. (248)  Feingold argues that public diplomacy will create “meaningful opportunities for citizen dialogue, a chance for countries to get to know each other from the bottom up.” (264)  Perhaps the most well-known attempt by the US government at public diplomacy is the Peace Corps.  As a high school social studies teacher, I am a firm supporter of public diplomacy.  One of the classes I teach is World Studies, a mix of history, government, geography, and economics.  During the thirty-six weeks we are in school, my job is to teach my students (who are mostly 15-16 years old) about various regions around the world using those “strands” of social studies.  In other words, I am trying to increase my students’ interest and awareness in global affairs and cultures, as well as break down stereotypes.  As I am sure that classes like this are found all over the world, who better to engage in public diplomacy than teachers?  Accordingly, I want to point out two specific opportunities for teachers.

The first program is the Fulbright Classroom Teacher Exchange, an opportunity for a teacher from the US and another country to exchange positions for a semester or a year.  Unfortunately, there are only six other countries participating in the program.  I hope that whichever agency is in charge of the Fulbright (US Department of State?  Institute of International Education?) will eventually be able to add more countries to the list.  As someone who has a keen interest in transatlantic relations, the second program I want to point out is the Marshall Memorial Fellowship created by the German Marshall Fund of the United States.  Participants “visit five cities during the 24-day program” and “explore each other’s politics, business, innovation, and culture through experiential learning.”  Given the importance of the relationship between the US and Europe, programs like this one are beneficial to parties on both sides of the Atlantic.

Since 9/11 and the debacle known as the Bush Doctrine, the US has lost its standing in the world.  We have a lot of relationships to mend.  Russ Feingold has given the American public and politicians a blueprint for a successful foreign policy.  Hopefully, more people will read his book and take his advice.

Opportunity? What Opportunity?

jasonlknoll US Politics

On March 12, the House GOP released its Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution.  As I read the section titled, “Opportunity Expanded,” I found numerous ideas with which I took issue.

First, in the summary of the key components, they claim that “The American people know their needs better than bureaucrats thousands of miles away” (p. 8).  In some cases, this may be true, but then if it is, why do we send representatives to Washington?  So, you want to be in Washington, but being in Washington is bad?  This idea reminds me of the argument that euroskeptics make about the role of Brussels in the EU.

Next, they argue that “for millions of people, the American Dream is seemingly out of reach” (p. 19).  I happen to agree with them, but for all of the wrong reasons.  The GOP believes that big government has torn apart communities and is responsible for holding people back from success.  I would argue that our government has not done enough to help people succeed.  In a recent article, Lane Kenworthy proposes that “there is now less equality of opportunity in the United States than in most other wealthy democratic nations.”  He continues that “Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom” all rank ahead of the United States in intergenerational mobility.  Did you notice anything about most of those nations?  Many are social welfare states.  They have big governments; however, they are not just big, they are also smart governments.  They promote the general welfare.

The GOP says it wants to empower families and citizens.  Kenworthy asserts that “One simple, straightforward solution would be to get more money into the hands of low-income families with children.”  He then gives the example that many of the so-called welfare states actually give a “child allowance” to families with kids; the US, in comparison, gives a measly tax credit.  Another way to empower families would be to improve our abysmal policy on paid parental leave.  Check out this graphic from a recent article on the Huffington Post:

0204pregnancyleave_final

Another point of contention I have with the GOP is their idea to “ensure aid for higher education is targeted to the truly needy” (p. 19).  Who exactly are the truly needy?  Does this mean that if one’s family is not poor enough, then they might miss out on funding opportunities?  They devote paragraphs discussing the rising cost of college tuition and how students are graduating with massive debt.  Here’s an idea- decrease the cost of a college education.  Parents should not have to worry about whether or not they can afford to send their children to college.  Attending a university now in the US has basically become a privilege, not a right.  That is not the way to empower citizens.

The GOP believes that government spending is out of control, and they are partially correct; however, if we spend smarter, improve our tax code, and increase our tax revenue, we can begin promoting the general welfare again.  For more on this issue, I highly recommend Andrea Louis Campbell’s article, “America the Undertaxed.”

I urge our leaders in both parties to re-examine the status of American society.  I’ll close with a wake-up call from Javier Solana (the former Foreign Minister of Spain, Secretary-General of NATO, and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy)- “Taking into account the level and quality of social protection, public education, and health care in the EU and the US, and without knowing beforehand what your social position would be in either society, where would you prefer to be born?”  What does it say about our country when foreign officials question the American government’s ability to take care of its citizens and provide them with the opportunity to thrive?  The GOP’s version of the budget will only perpetuate the problem of the lack of opportunities.

Politicians and Twitter

jasonlknoll Social Media, US Politics, WI Politics

In fall of 2011, I took a course on American political parties, and for my final research project I had decided to examine how political parties used Facebook and Twitter.  I didn’t have a Twitter account, so I had to sign up for one.  Once in, I didn’t fully grasp what the fuss was all about.   It seemed to me that Twitter was a big sounding board on which nobody interacted with anybody else (unless you were one of the select few who has managed to crack their way in to the inner circle).  On top of that, I wasn’t sure how to categorize Tweets.  So, after a couple of weeks, I decided to change the focus of my paper to something completely different- the arguments for and against the New START Treaty given by the two main parties.

Fast forward a few months to the week of the 2012 State of the Union.  I saw the various Twitterchats planned by the White House, and I wanted to participate; therefore, I got back on Twitter, and braved my way through the then confusing world of hashtags.  Since then, I’ve become a Twitter enthusiast, even using Tweetdeck to keep track of all of my lists.  Additionally, during the Republican primary debates and national party conventions, I became a proponent of the dual-screen experience.  During the debates between Gov. Romney and President Obama, I encouraged my students to follow along on Twitter so that they could see how the parties and the candidates attempted to frame the conversation.  Our discussions the days after the debates were great because not only did we talk about the debate itself, but also their thoughts on the use of social media in politics.  This semester, I plan on introducing a unit devoted solely to social media in politics, and it is this that led me to write a short post about how politicians use Twitter.

Instead of a discussion about politicians in general, I decided to focus on Wisconsin’s elected representatives in the House of Representatives (three Democrats and five Republicans).  Since new representatives were sworn in on January 3, 2013, I thought I would use their tweets between then and February 13, as a sample.  This time period not only encompasses the beginning of the new Congress, but also major events such as the White House’s announcement for reducing gun violence (January 16), President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address (January 20), the plan for immigration reform (January 29), and the 2013 State of the Union (February 12).  Surely as the new session began, politicians would be all over Twitter trying to spread their message and mobilize supporters.  I analyzed their tweets to see if they addressed any of the four major events and to see if they were critical of the opposition party.  I also took notice of which hashtags they used and their frequency.  Finally, I looked for URL’s to any sort of press release or statement regarding an action/idea/policy.  Here is a breakdown of my findings.

Rep. Sean Duffy; R, 7th District- 7 Tweets (2 Retweets, 0 Replies).  None of his Tweets addressed the four major events I mentioned above.  Three of them, however, mentioned town hall meetings with constituents.  The only hashtag he used more than once was #NoBudgetNoPay (twice).  One critical Tweet addressed a lack of budget from the President and Senate Democrats.  The only URL’s happened to be in the two Retweets.

Rep. Ron Kind; D, 3rd District- 16 Tweets (2 Retweets, 0 Replies).  Of the four major events, Rep. Kind discussed only the State of the Union, using #SOTU four times.  His only critical Tweet addressed Gov. Walker’s “decision to reject federal dollars for Medicaid expansion.”  Six of his tweets (not including the Retweets) included URL’s to news articles, media releases, and a YouTube video of his weekly address.

Rep. Gwen Moore; D, 4th District- 199 Tweets.  Due to the high number of Tweets and my lack of time, I am taking Rep. Moore out of my analysis.  Based on a cursory glance over her Tweets, however, I can say that she has mastered the use of hashtags and Tweeted extensively about the State of the Union.

Rep. Tom Petri; R, 6th District- does not have a Twitter account.  I did message his Facebook account to ask about the lack of a Twitter account but have not yet received a reply.

Rep. Mark Pocan; D, 2nd District- 1 Tweet.  The only Tweet happened to be about swearing in day and included a picture of Wisconsin products.  What’s interesting is that when I click on the Twitter icon on his congressional website, it re-directs me to the Twitter feed for the House Democrats.  Ironically, the same website has a page about social media with links to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr, all of which direct the user to the House Democrats.

Rep. Reid Ribble; R, 8th District- 17 Tweets (5 Retweets, 0 Replies).  Interestingly, none of the Tweets were in the month of February.  Similar to Rep. Duffy, Rep. Ribble used #NoBudgetNoPay more than once (three times).  None of his Tweets were critical of the President or the Democrats, but he did have two Tweets supporting Donald Driver (the Green Bay packers wide receiver).  Six Tweets included URL’s.

Rep. Paul Ryan; R, 1st District- 13 Tweets (0 Retweets, 0 Replies).  Twelve of his Tweets provided URLs to articles or videos.  Only one Tweet addressed one of the four events- the inauguration- and it congratulated the President.  Eight of the Tweets were critical of the Democrats and a lack of budget.  His last Tweet celebrated Pope Benedict XVI.  Only one Tweet contained a hashtag, and it was to promote him being on Meet the Press.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner; R, 5th District- 15 Tweets (4 Retweets, 0 Replies).  Two Tweets addressed the four events.  One Tweet provided a URL to a statement about immigration reform, while the other gave a URL to a video on the YouTube channel of House Republicans of what President Obama has said in previous SOTU’s.  These two Tweets were the only ones to contain any sort of criticism.  His only use of a hashtag came on January 3- #113th, in reference to the 113th Congress.  Nine of his ten Tweets included a URL, four of them back to his congressional website.

I was surprised with a number of issues.  First, with the exception of Rep. Moore, I thought that there would have been more Tweets.  With the growing use of social media in politics, and more being written about how politicians can successfully use it, I am surprised at how little the representatives from Wisconsin use Twitter.  Even more shocking was the fact that Rep. Petri does not have an account.

Next, given the two major events and two nationally covered policy initiatives that came from the White House, I was surprised to see how little attention they received.  There was little, if any, support or criticism for what the President said in his two speeches or on the proposals regarding reducing gun violence and immigration reform.  Are our representatives apathetic, or do they have their own agendas?  If they have their own agendas, why didn’t they Tweet more about them?  Or, perhaps the two issues of gun control and immigration are too controversial to discuss.

My conclusion- the elected representatives from Wisconsin are missing out on spreading their message by not actively using Twitter.  With the possibility to engage “Tweeps” through Twitterchats, and the fact that Twitter averaged 340 million Tweets per day in 2012 (CQ Press, “Social Media and Politics,” p. 875), using Twitter could be a great opportunity to build up support and spread one’s message.