Brookings: Experts - John Hudak

Defeat of Toomey-Manchin: Neither Cloture nor Closure for Victims of Gun Violence

John Hudak — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:21:00 -0400

Whither Representation? Yesterday’s failure to advance the Toomey-Manchin Amendment to expand background checks on gun purchases showed the American people that regardless of their preferences, regardless of what a majority of Senators want, regardless of the amount of compromise, some Senators refuse to represent their states.

Public polling is clear, and those who argue that polling is non-scientific, not truly capturing public opinion, are liberal machinations, or are biased in sampling and question wording remind us of those who expected a decisive Romney victory in November because all the polls were wrong. One poll could be off; two polls could fall victim to poor question wording. Yet, the reality of public opinion on background checks is well-established by a variety of sources including universities (here, here and here); in blue states, red states, and swing states; liberal sources and conservative sources; and the most well-regarded polling firms in the world (here and here).

Such support is not mixed. In almost every poll between 85%-91% of Americans support such reforms. Support is not regional, nor gendered, nor partisan, nor ideological, nor dependent on gun ownership. It is as broad-based as the reforms are moderate. It is as systematic as Toomey-Manchin is sensible.

Despite public opinion, 45 Senators failed to represent voters, and instead represented interest groups. (There were 46 Nay votes because Sen. Reid was required by Senate rules to switch his vote from Yea in order to reserve the right to recall the legislation at a later date—a common procedural move by Senate leaders.) They fell victim to pressure from a lobby who warned of national registries and criminalizing innocent behaviors. Chuck Grassley noted on the Senate floor yesterday that, “This is a slippery slope of compromising the Second Amendment, and if we go down that road, we are going to find it easier to compromise other things in the Bill of Rights.”

Senators failed to allow public opinion to get in the way of their voting. The same can be said for the facts. Fears about national registries arose because of interest group involvement and United States Senators constantly repeating talking points that diverged from reality. A quick reading of the Toomey-Manchin legislation shows that a national gun registry is explicitly banned in not one, not two, but three different places.

“Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.”

“Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title shall be construed to allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.”

”Prohibition of National Gun Registry. – Section 923 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-
(1)   Acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-
    (A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
    (B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
(2)   Possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity."

This language could not be clearer. Public support could not be stronger. And 45 Senators could not possibly have turned their back on their constituents in a more striking way.

Victims of gun violence—particularly families who suffered losses in the Newtown massacre—came to Capitol Hill not to promote their personal interests, not to promote their personal narrative above public will. They lobbied Senators to support something Americans overwhelmingly support.

Forty-five Senators worried that conducting background checks on gun buyers is a Constitutional violation and feared the wrath of interest groups who represent the views of 10% of the population on this issue. Now they must hope that when voters conduct their own background checks before going into the voting booth, that this vote is overlooked.

Authors

John Hudak

Applauding Connecticut’s Gun Control Legislation

John Hudak — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:28:00 -0400

The Connecticut General Assembly and Governor Dannel Malloy have proposed and passed a legislative package addressing gun control, school safety, and mental health care. Are they controversial? Yes. Are they motivated by a horrific act of school violence? Yes. Do they provide a prime opportunity to improve public policy? Absolutely. The latter is what is missing from the national conversation.

Since the massacre in Newtown 111 days ago, gun control advocates have begged for policy solutions. Gun rights advocates have argued that legislative proposals will not work and thus should not be implemented. Connecticut offers something for everyone. First, this legislation is the most comprehensive, aggressive policy response in the United States since the tragedy. This move will please those clamoring for tighter restrictions on guns, for safer schools, and improved mental health care.

Second, gun rights advocates should see this as an opportunity. If gun owners, conservatives, libertarians, NRA officials and others truly believe such legislation will fail, these laws give them a chance to demonstrate it. If their convictions are firm and true and these laws will only lead to more violence, there will be proof. If their fears that such laws will make honest, law-abiding citizens the defenseless victims of criminals and an expansive government, the Nutmeg State will show us. For those in favor of unfettered access to firearms, you should let Connecticut prove your point.

Yet, there is an alternative scenario. One that is more plausible. One that is more likely. The Connecticut legislation may be a success. It may limit—not stop, but limit—crime, keep some weapons out of the hands of dangerous offenders, keep schools and other public spaces safer, provide better preventive mental health care, assist law enforcement in their investigations, and still allow citizens the ability to exercise their 2^nd Amendment rights. This scenario terrifies the most extreme elements of the gun lobby. It threatens not the Constitution, but their own existence.

The Connecticut legislation will offer a test. With scientific research, statistical analysis, and policy experience, we will see whether rhetoric reflects reality. We will see whether policy succeeds or fails. It gives us a chance to ask and answer questions that plague this debate. Yes, researchers have asked these questions already. Some of the best work on the topic comes from Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Daniel Webster and his colleagues at the Center for Gun Policy and Research. Moving forward, this legislation provides an experimental setting, Connecticut provides the most public of profiles, and time will provide the data.

Surely, some will bemoan the move as an infringement on the 2^nd Amendment. And these laws allow courts to rule on the constitutionality of such restrictions—another opportunity for gun rights advocates fearful of constitutional violation. But, in reality, Connecticut’s move today exemplifies one of the most beautiful attributes of the American Constitution: federalism. Federalism lets states within bounds to implement laws separate from the national government. It allows for an evaluation of policies and their effectiveness. States do this with law enforcement, budgeting, taxation, health care, tort reform, marriage, drug policy, and in a whole host of areas. My colleague, Jonathan Rauch, recently explained that these different laws in different places tell us much about what is good policy and what is bad. We can improve our laws, ignore the bad, embrace the good, and let evidence, not talking points, inform future policymaking.

In many ways, Connecticut has done the impossible. It brought together leaders from both parties to come to a compromise based on evidence, testimony, empirics, and, yes, emotions. Democrats and Republicans together passed legislation in an effort to keep safe my friends who are teachers, my family members who are students, my brother-in-law in law enforcement and my fellow Nutmeg State brethren.

Gridlock did not win the day in Connecticut. Solutions did. Now, time will tell us exactly what gets solved.

Authors

John Hudak

Image Source: © Michelle McLoughlin / Reuters

The Biden Gun Control Task Force: Risks and Rewards

John Hudak — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:58:00 -0500

The President has put the Vice President in a nearly impossible position: to change policy in an area rife with emotions and interest group opposition. Failure on Mr. Biden’s part may be inevitable, yet any chance he has to craft a successful gun control policy response to the Newtown tragedy requires measured reform and balanced strategy.

Mr. Biden is a master of the legislative process. He knows he cannot fix the whole problem nor can he achieve everything the president wants. Instead, he must recommend smaller-scale, straightforward gun reforms that the public can easily comprehend. “Assault weapons ban” is a vague and unclear term that most struggle to understand fully. It is also not passable. “Universal background checks” are something most Americans can comprehend and is harder for interest groups and activists to oppose. Biden knows any chance at success absolutely requires broad public support and minimal interest group (read: NRA) opposition. Smaller, piecemeal reforms can foster both.

In addition to the measured reform, Biden needs to insist on a balanced strategy. In some negotiations, it is critical to start big and negotiate down to compromise. For gun control, that approach would be an abject failure. If the Obama Administration begins with their ideal offer, they will ultimately get nothing. The “sensible gun reform” narrative will immediately be replaced with “Obama is coming for our guns.” Instead, if the White House thinks it can get 20% of what it wants, it must ask for 20%—nothing more, nothing less. Supporters on the left may criticize this approach, but they will be even angrier if the Vice President fails to deliver.

Reports also indicate that the Obama Administration may use executive power to enact some reforms. This approach may be a viable, effective, and necessary strategy, but not right now. If President Obama uses the powers of his office in advance of legislative efforts, he will ruin any momentum he has in Congress. Premature executive action will ensure legislative failure. If the White House proposals fail—or even if they succeed—the president can rely on executive power later.

The politics surrounding this issue make policy change profoundly difficult. Sensitivity toward the political needs and forces in Congress, in the public, and among interest groups is crucial. For a president who often struggles to deal with the politics of the legislative process, he must consider not only the strength of his office, but also the proper timing of his powers.

On Tuesday, the Biden Task Force will make public its recommendations. If the proposals are measured, they have a chance of enactment. If they are too broad and lack strategic vision they will certainly fail. In the end, Mr. Biden may be the only person in the White House with the capacity to succeed on this issue. Yet, his success depends on his approach and that of his boss.

Authors

John Hudak

Image Source: © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: The Benefits of Politics as Usual

John Hudak — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:00:00 -0500

During the election cycle, many politicians and media outlets blamed failure in Washington on politics as usual. This common campaign theme serves more as a political pitch than the identification of a real problem. In fact, politics as usual is a nice departure from the politics of the last two years. Leading up to the 2012 presidential election, compromise was seen as anathema within the GOP, and gridlock was viewed as the best means to defeating the president’s reelection.

House Republicans saw the path to political glory paved with stalled legislation, and by wrapping themselves in opposition to an unpopular president, perpetuated a comprehensive though ultimately unsuccessful strategy. In the end, President Obama was reelected, and the ramifications of that change in political environment were nowhere more obvious than the fiscal cliff bill.

The fiscal cliff bill was not a continuation of blanket opposition to the president. Nor was the vote, as many analysts have suggested, indicative of a severely fractured House GOP conference. Instead, the vote illustrates politics as usual: Congressmen voting according to the needs of their constituencies. The table below shows that Republican House Members from Blue States provided the large majority of the Republican votes in favor of the fiscal cliff deal (80 percent). In fact, a majority of Blue State Republicans voted in favor of the deal (53 percent). Conversely, less than 16 percent of Republicans from Red States voted in favor of the deal.

Although results from the state level provide interesting insight into the bill, analysis of district-level partisanship offers more nuance. The next figure shows that Republicans representing districts Obama won in 2008 voted overwhelmingly in favor of the fiscal cliff deal. Moreover, nearly half of the Obama-district Republicans voting no, were lame ducks, free of electoral constraints after suffering defeat in 2012.

Similarly, as Congressional districts become more Republican-leaning, the likelihood of a GOP House Member voting “no” increases. In districts McCain won by 10 percent or less, 61 percent of GOP House Members opposed the fiscal cliff deal. That figure increases to 71 percent in districts McCain won by more than 10 percent. In fact, even using Charlie Cook’s more complex and nuanced measure of district partisanship (the PVI or Partisan Voting Index), the same results hold.

These results should not come as a surprise. Republicans representing conservative districts tended to vote against the fiscal cliff deal. Republicans representing more moderate or liberal districts tended to vote in favor of the deal. However, given the behavior during the 112th Congress in which Republicans strongly opposed the president’s legislative interests, these results are encouraging. They suggest House Republicans may depart from a holistic drive to defeat the president, preferring instead to represent the interests of their districts. Politics as usual may sound like a damning problem plaguing Washington, but in reality it may be its saving grace.

Authors

John Hudak

Gun Control and the Political Climate: A Live Web Chat with John Hudak

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:30:00 -0500

Event Information

December 20, 2012
1:30 PM - 2:00 PM EST

Online Only
The Brookings Institution

Washington, DC

On Friday, December 11, the United States experienced unimaginable horror following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. In the wake of this tragedy, as the nation mourns for the victims and their loved ones, policy makers and the public are raising vital questions about how to stop this cycle of violence. What role should the government play in limiting access to dangerous weapons? What can be done to ensure Americans are receiving the mental healthcare they need? Will politicians to take meaningful action in the near future?

On December 20, John Hudak took your questions in a live web chat moderated by Andrea Drusch at POLITICO. Read a full transcript of the chat below.

1:30 Andrea Drusch: Welcome everyone, let's get started.

1:30 John Hudak: Good afternoon: I'm glad you could all join me today for a policy discussion I wish I did not have to have. The shootings in Newtown, CT have affected all of us in an emotional way. As an American, I am appalled at what a fellow American wanted to do to a group of innocents. As a Connecticut native, I mourn with my state through one of the worst tragedies in our history.

I have written on this issue in the past week, a thought piece about the best way to go about policy making in the near term (it is available on the www.brookings.edu website), and I hope to engage this discussion in a more detailed way today. I welcome your questions.

1:30 Comment from Don: In my opinion, this is a gun control issue. If we highlight the other moving parts (mental health, etc.), do we risk weakening pressure on officials to reform gun control? That is - shouldn't we be one united voice for one issue in the wake of this tragedy?

1:32 John Hudak: No, Don, this is precisely the problem with policy making in the US and often abroad. We address policy problems with partial solutions and then call those solutions a failure. The events of the past week, month, and past year involving these incidents must be solved through a series of steps, not a single path. We must engage all of these areas if we want policy that means improvement.

1:33 John Hudak: In fact, in terms of a pure legislative bargaining perspective, engaging other areas of policy may help gather support among other members less ready to commit on the gun issue if they see the gun issue is not taking center stage and viewed as the singular problem.

1:33 Comment from Brian: What do you think it says about our political system that it takes something this bad to provide motivation for reform?

1:35 John Hudak: I think you're right, Brian, that it is unfortunate that we need tragedies to address problems. However, this is not something unique to our political system. As we have been reminded of stories over the past week from the UK, Australia and other countries, with dramatically different (and perhaps more efficient) political systems, they, too, often need tragedies to address policy concerns. We often see this outside of gun violence. It has been true across the world in responses to terrorism, in the improvement of disease prevention, in the testing of pharmaceuticals, and even in the growth and development of democracy.

1:35 Comment from Christine: Can you speak to the actual politics at play— what are the chances we'll push meaningful legislation through Congress. The assault weapon ban?

1:37 John Hudak: The politics here are tough, as they’re always tough on the gun control issue. Groups are entrenched, well-funded and have access. And even if you don't believe the NRA or other groups are as powerful as many think, they remain a power among certain segment of Congress and the broader population and are likely to influence this process. For Republicans who want to have looser gun regulations, they have a benefit on their side--the status quo. The legislative process in the US is biased toward the status quo as leg. action is difficult and faces many stages where failure is easy. 1:38 John Hudak: However, the Newtown tragedy brings a window in which action may happen. The media narrative and public opinion will render (regardless of its true power) gun rights groups to be the least powerful they have been in a long time. Similarly, it is hard to stand up against reasonable, reasoned and useful gun control regulations.

1:39 John Hudak: However, for Democrats, there are challenges, too. They need to approach this from a realistic perspective. If they try to do too much, they will do nothing. They need to understand where public opinion is, and where the preferences are within Congress and address policy options that are possible, rather than perfect.

1:40 John Hudak: Failure, in this context, is very easy. Success requires strategy and hard work. We're in an environment where gun regulation is going to be more possible than it may ever have been, but it remains far from a sure thing.

1:40 Comment from Benjamin: What did you think of the "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" piece that was circulating in the days after Sandy Hook? Sure mental health plays a part in this, but ultimately we have a bigger cultural problem with guns, in my opinion. Other countries have mentally ill citizens. They don't have as many mass shootings.

1:42 John Hudak: I think the "I Am.." piece is very powerful, and addresses a serious issue in the US that is partly related to this tragedy and one that is much larger than this tragedy. Mental Health Care in the US must be address in a more systematic and powerful way. As I wrote in my piece from Monday. Mental illness is likely to touch everyone--directly or indirectly--in their lifetime in one way or another. To blame Newtown entirely on a gun culture is extremely naive. Yes, other cultures have mentally ill citizens. However, that does not mean we cannot do a better job.

1:44 John Hudak: Across the world, access the mental health care varies. I am not saying that there is a relationship between access and decreased violence. Though that is certainly a question that I'm sure has been and/or should be explored. However, we cannot look at this as simply a guns issue. Guns play a role, surely, and policies can and should be amended to keep guns out of the hands of those most dangerous or ill. However, the mentally ill can hurt society in a variety of ways, guns, knives, bombs, etc. Newtown has shown us that guns can perpetuate horrific tragedy on us. But so does mental illness that goes untreated.

1:45 Comment from Anonymous: What policy failures have we made that allowed this to happen?

1:48 John Hudak: This is a very interesting question. By all accounts, CT's gun laws are among the most strict in the country. The security at this school was fairly advanced. Yet, this tragedy still happened. The access to guns that can cause enormous harm in a very rapid timeframe, surely, had an effect here and access to those guns can turn problematic.

Yet, we must reconsider the access to guns--direct or indirect--that the mentally ill have as a policy concern. As we learn more about this tragedy and the situation that played out in the Lanza house, we must consider how much we allow children and those with serious illness to have access to recreational weapon usage. It is certain warning signs were there, and that people may have observed this individual using firearms, knowing he should not have. How we engage these issues will matter substantially.

1:50 John Hudak: However, we should not think only about policy failure. What in the system worked. What in the system helped stop or slow this tragedy. Surely, the system of access to the school slowed the shooter. Maybe that saved 5 or 10 lives, compared to a school that was more easily accessible. Reports suggest the individual tried to purchase a gun at an earlier date but could not. We must not only look at what failed, but what helped or was geared in the right direction.

1:50 Comment from Taylor S.: Is this a federal issue? Won't there be concerns at the state level on mandating an overhaul on gun control?

1:52 John Hudak: Absolutely. We cannot think of this as simply a federal issue. States should and must do what they can to learn from this tragedy and others like it to strengthen gun laws, improve school safety, engage preparedness policies, and improve access to and quality of mental health care. That said, there will be states that move on these issues quickly and ones that refuse to do anything. It is in the latter that federal action is so critical. Gun violence affects every state, and every state should do more to stop it. Yet, every state will not, unless federal measures use good, sound policy and empirical evidence to change the manner in which laws protect our citizens.

1:52 Comment from Jim: Was the NRA right to stay quiet all weekend?

1:53 John Hudak: Yes. Anything the NRA says in this scenario will get examined under a microscope. Whether you think that is right or not, it was likely better for investigators to do their work and families to mourn their losses without 100 questions being asked about the "NRA reaction"

1:54 Comment From Hugh: There appear to be some obvious actions that could attract sufficiently large voting coalitions - restrictions on sales and ownership of automatic/assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and certain types of ammunition.

1:57John Hudak: This is exactly on the right track, Hugh. What gun control advocates and their supporters in Congress must think about policy changes in a discrete way with proposals that can get passed. High capacity magazines, certain specific types of guns, access limitations for those with violent histories, etc may be very "passable." What would be absolutely wrong on this would be to try sweeping, broad, vague legislation that fails to use useful demonstrable evidence of effectiveness. It will not get passed and then the window in which real policy change is possible will close. Gun control advocates must respect the views of the other side and account for them or risk effecting no policy change.

1:57 Comment from Anonymous: Because Lanza obtained the gun from his mother, who was, arguably not mentally ill, doesn't that simply (again) reflect a need for more overall gun control?

2:00 John Hudak: What it tells us is that we need to think of gun control as more than a purchaser-seller relationship. Gun safety starts at the point of sale, and continues into the home, into the automobile, onto the person carrying or concealing a firearm, and onto a gun range. Many of these areas and scenarios are regulated, some are not. We need to think more broadly about what can be done within homes and other areas to stop this. Perhaps regulation is not the answer. Perhaps it is an information campaign or subsidies for safe storage units or assistance and training on how best to keep weapons in a house will children or those with illness. Or perhaps regulation is best. But something must be engaged on this point to think more broadly about safety and control.

2:02 John Hudak: Thanks everyone for some great questions. This is a serious issue and I hope all of you will help assist your communities in addressing policy concerns like these and others. I also encourage you to donate to many of the causes helping to assist the victims' families in Newtown include Newtown United Way and others. This work must continue and the people in these communities need any assistance possible.

I expect in the future, I will write more on this issue. Feel free to find these works, and ones by my colleagues at www.brookings.edu and if you would like, follow me on Twitter @JohnJHudak.

Thank you.

2:02 Andrea Drusch: Thanks everyone for your questions, see you next time.

A Response to Sandy Hook

John Hudak — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:59:00 -0500

The school shooting in Newtown, CT, affected the nation in a profound way. How the small New England community will heal is an endeavor that defeats most human understanding— my own included. However, the manner in which we as a nation will respond in the short term— not the long term— is absolutely critical.

I thankfully was not directly affected by the tragedy. I knew no families who lost loved ones. My friends who are Connecticut educators teach in other districts. Yet, Sandy Hook Elementary School is 10 miles from the house in which I was raised. That makes such a tragedy not a distant, anonymous act of violence but one for which I can apply familiar imagery. To me, that is unsettling and terrifying.

However, we all grew up 10 miles from Sandy Hook. We all live in or have family from small, tight knit communities. You know this town even if you have never had the opportunity to be there. This tragedy revealed not just a fear about the unpredictability of life and the worst of human capacity. It revealed a need to address public policy, and we must.

Too often in the face of policy crisis, we as a nation are too timid or too angry to address solutions. This is the case for acts of gun violence and for topics thrust to the fore by newsworthy, sudden events. We either justify inaction by saying "now is not the time"—cowardice in the first degree. Or we vilify opponents, politicize policy ideas, and poison the discourse that offers the only path to preventing a repeat of history.

What first springs to mind in the wake of a mass shooting is a debate over gun laws, but this tragedy exposes much more. A debate on guns must be had, but we must also have one about school safety. We must also have one about our opinion of teachers in society. We must also have one about mental health care, for patients and families of patients.

Now is the time to address these issues in a level-headed, scientific, solution-seeking way. We must do this at the local, state, and federal levels. And we must do this at a personal level. We have an absolute obligation to ourselves, to our communities, to our nation, to our constitution, and to the victims and families of this tragedy and others like it.

The approach is straightforward but not simple. First, we must change our rhetoric, then our policies.

Gun owners cannot be seen as violent, unbending, dangerous individuals. Gun control advocates must not be seen as anti-American, anti-freedom supporters of government intrusion. Nor must we think that gun owners and gun control advocates are different people. Most who own firearms understand fully the need for laws that protect society. There are extreme factions on both sides, but let that reality not dictate the debate. Let the more moderate views of almost all Americans drive legitimate, beneficial policy solutions.

Similarly, we must improve our ability as a society to provide mental health services to not only to those with access, nor only those who want them. We must provide them to everyone in need. We must sever the recent health care debate from the one we must have now.

Opponents of universal health care consider it European-style, socialist policy that is harmful to freedom. In the context of mental health care, we can do better than this debate. Mental health care touches each of us in our lifetimes. It ranges from depression over the loss of a loved one to PTSD among our brave soldiers (and now brave teachers) to a diagnosable violent psychosis. Addressing how we improve the personal, medical and societal need for this care must become a critical cause.

What is worse: universal access to mental health services or universal mourning and grief? Should we prefer government officials helping those with mental illness and need or first responders storming an elementary school or house of worship or theater or mall or home or business or wherever tomorrow’s act of violence will occur because of untreated illness? We must look inward; we must debate policy now; we must do better, but ultimately, we must.

In response to this tragedy, many Americans will work to protect their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. We should also work to preserve the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws. That guarantee will remain unfulfilled until mental health services are inexpensive, easily accessible and without stigma. Expanded services and a system better able to deal effectively with those with violent tendencies serve the individual, the community, the nation, and the community of nations.

On Sunday, I returned to the United States from a business trip in Europe. When a ticket agent in the airport in Paris saw my home state on my passport, sadness flushed her face, and she said, “I am so sorry for what your state is going through.” I thanked her and thought, “Why must this be how she thinks of my great state and our great nation?” In reality, it is not, and we must do better.

Editor's Note: John Hudak also took questions on this topic in a live webchat. Read the chat transcript here.

Authors

John Hudak

Image Source: © Lucas Jackson / Reuters

Challenges Facing President Obama During His Second Administration

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:00:00 -0500

Event Information

November 28, 2012
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

At the outset of a new administration, every president, whether incumbent or newly elected, faces management challenges unique to the executive branch: selecting and confirming staff, Cabinet members, and agency heads; establishing or renewing relations with Congress; and defining and then acting on an agenda. Newly reelected President Obama is no exception and faces any number of obstacles in his second term. What are the specific impediments to his success, and what might he do both as a leader and as head of the executive branch to move his second term agenda forward? Given that Republicans maintain control of the House and Democrats only have a slight edge in the Senate, what can be done to ensure executive branch effectiveness amid the continued challenges of divided government? What can a president hope to accomplish in an era of hyper-partisanship?

On November 28, Governance Studies at Brookings, as part of its Management and Leadership Initiative, hosted a forum on the various executive branch challenges facing the Obama administration in its second term. Discussion also centered on what defines presidential leadership, and how its manifestations reveal useful lessons for President Obama as he tackles a vast array of difficulties in his next term.

Republicans: In Victory or Defeat

John Hudak — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:11:00 -0500

Regardless of the results of today's election, the Republican establishment will argue the party must move rightward and reinforce its most conservative values. True partisans will push for identical responses whether Governor Romney enters the White House or retirement. This reaction will not strengthen the GOP but hinder its future viability.

A Romney Win

If Governor Romney beats President Obama, Republicans will frame the result as a transcendent defeat of conservatism over New Deal-style liberalism. Policymakers, donors, and party activists will urge the swift replacement of existing fiscal, social, and regulatory policies. They will claim that Romney’s win—no matter the margin—signals a nation heartily embracing the most extreme of Republican values. The reaction will be to conflate a win and a mandate.

Four years ago, President Obama confused the two. He won the White House by a substantial margin. He grabbed a larger percentage of the popular vote than any candidate in 20 years and grew his party’s Senate majority to be filibuster-proof. The perceived mandate to pass legislation such as the Affordable Care Act overestimated support and underestimated backlash. The irony is that Republicans should learn from Obama in designing a legislative strategy. Yet, they won’t. They will repeat many of the same mistakes and likely in grander fashion.

A Romney victory will not signal an American public ready for Republican extremism, much like the 2008 Obama victory did not signal readiness for Democratic extremism. Americans will not elect Romney because of a hunger for policies that further isolate women, Latinos, and young voters. They will elect Romney because they want a pragmatic leader who will address the nation’s most pressing problems. However, if the Tea Party reads the tealeaves, pragmatism will be thoroughly absent and more extreme policies will abound.

A strong president could prevent—or at least moderate—this rightward march. Unfortunately for Governor Romney and the future of his party, he will be powerless to stop it. The Republican base is already skeptical of Romney, and based on his prior Senate campaign and gubernatorial record, this concern is justified. Conservatives will go to the polls on Tuesday and cast ballots for Romney not because they adore him or even trust him, but because he is better than their alternative. As a result, Romney will find himself in a difficult position.

If a President Romney sought to moderate policy, the party would revolt. If he worked to build bridges with Latinos and women by relaxing the party line on immigration and social issues, the party would revolt. If he dared incorporate compromise into his dealings with Democrats, the party would revolt. Moderate Mitt will face a 2016 primary challenge, and as a result, the former Massachusetts Governor has no choice but to be a “severely conservative” president.

A Romney Loss

If Governor Romney loses on Tuesday, the party’s reaction will be stinging. They will not blame conservative principles, the isolation of large portions of the American electorate, or the inability to convince voters of a suitable plan for economic recovery. Instead, they will blame Moderate Mitt for the loss.

Some in the party have preemptively pointed fingers at Hurricane Sandy to explain a loss. This argument will be fleeting. Ultimately, the party will claim their mistake was nominating a man who lacked truly conservative bona fides—a candidate who once supported gay rights, abortion rights, and universal health care.

A Romney loss will ignite passion within the GOP to move ever rightward. Never again will the most vocal in the party settle for a moderate candidate. The path to Republican presidential success will not be to redefine its appeal, but to double down. Jon Huntsman will not be the path forward, Rand Paul will. Moderates who can appeal to women and Latinos, like Susana Martinez, will not be seen as the future; they will be viewed as the problem.

In the immediate aftermath of a second Obama term, Republicans will do some soul-searching. That search may come up empty. Rather than changing with a changing nation, the Republican Party will reflect the proverbial definition of insanity. A Republican party that is obstinate will watch as states like Arizona and eventually Texas become swing states. They will also stand witness to formerly red states like Virginia and North Carolina trending bluer.

The Republican Party is not doomed. It will not disappear nor divide. It will come to grips with the realities of a changing society. It will learn that a changing electoral map will work against them in the future—no matter the outcome of the 2012 election. In time, they will realize their path to survival.

November 2012 will not be that time, whether Mr. Romney goes to Washington or back to Boston.

Authors

John Hudak

Image Source: © Brian Snyder / Reuters

What Polling Really Tells Us

John Hudak — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Pollsters have spent months monitoring every nuance of the presidential contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. If the polls are to be believed, says Fellow John Hudak, then we already know who the likely winner will be

Video

What Polling Really Tells Us

Authors

John Hudak

Presidential Pandering: How Elections Determine the Exercise of Executive Power in the U.S. and Colombia

Brian M. Faughnan and John Hudak — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:33:00 -0400

Campaigns consume presidents. They raise funds, hire staff, hold rallies, and give speeches all to advance their electoral goals. However, they also use their official powers to do the same. The electorally-strategic exercise of executive power is not a strictly American syndrome, but is also true throughout the world, write Brian Faughnan and John Hudak. Because electoral success matters for the political survival of the world's executives, their actions reflect these interests and the rules governing elections. Faughnan and Hudak note that presidents rely heavily on direct actions, directives unchecked by other elected branches, to target policy benefits to critical constituencies. Such strategies have substantial consequences for public policy and affect the daily lives of citizens.

In this paper, Faughnan and Hudak examine presidential behavior in the United States and Colombia. They illustrate how presidents in both countries employ an electoral strategy when using direct actions. This strategy ensures presidents have nearly total control over the character of public policy and can select precisely which constituents will benefit. Although the motivation for such behavior is consistent across nations, the precise strategies vary by electoral system. Executives seek to satisfy, key constituencies, and a nation's electoral rules determine the identity of those constituencies. Juan Manuel Santos thinks not about residents of Risaralda or Nariño or Bolívar, but about Colombians. President Obama cannot focus broadly on Americans, but rather must think about Ohioans, Virginians and Floridians.

Presidents are always considered unique players in their respective political systems, and often notably distinct actors across democracies. However, executives throughout the world are motivated by similar needs and interests that lead them to exercise official powers in predictable ways. Understanding similarities in the uses of executive power is essential to determining the causes and consequences of public policy. In the context of electoral motivations, presidents discriminate when delivering public policy to constituents. To know who gets what, where, and when, Faughnan and Hudak argue what matters are the incentives that presidential elections create.

Hudak and Faughnan offer important observations about presidential behavior and its impact on public policy:

The same electoral forces motivate presidents in the U.S. and Colombia. Despite a tendency to distinguish the American president from his counterparts abroad, he, like them, is an election-driven actor.
Executives use official powers to target constituencies that are critical in elections.
Differences in the Electoral College in the U.S. and the two-round national vote in Colombia do not affect the motivation for executive action, but instead influences who benefits from such actions.
Electorally-strategic executive action can moderate policy and induce presidents to be highly responsive to citizen needs.
Electoral rules drive the U.S. president to target policy to small subsets of the population—swing states. Alternatively, Colombia's rules actually motivate the president to deliver policy to a broad portion of the electorate.
Despite the attention paid to each nation's presidential elections, we know little about how they influence domestic policy throughout the world. More work must seek to connect electoral motives to policy decisions.

Download » (PDF)

Downloads

Download the paper

Authors

Brian M. Faughnan
John Hudak

Image Source: © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Private Biden, Reporting for Duty

John Hudak — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Tonight was a battle for voters in the middle. Both parties put their finest soldiers in the field. Better equipped than Obama and Romney—distant and aloof standard-bearers—Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan grew up among the ranks of the people they need to win. And tonight on the TVs across middle-class America, Joe Biden was a hero.

The debate featured starkly different strategies to win over these voters—the same strategies that Biden and Ryan display every day on the campaign trail. Ryan blends intelligence with a Midwest, precocious, “Gee-Golly-Shucks” cadence that endears him to voters. Biden takes the tone of a Rust Belt, seasoned curmudgeon connecting through shared experience and weary grit.

Grit won.

Tonight Obama needed a champion, an advocate, and a force that did what he failed to do: show a contrast with Gov. Romney and rekindle the post-DNC enthusiasm. Joe was that force. Ironically, four years after Sen. Obama motivated deep enthusiasm in the electorate that eluded candidates from the Party Establishment, but tonight it was the Establishment that prevented Obama’s decline. Like he did many times before, Biden served dutifully, not only in service to his president but to his party and his country. He struck hard at Ryan (with a little too much smirking) over the details of Middle East politics, the realities of economic recovery, the benefits of stimulus, interest group support of Obamacare, tax rates, and abortion coverage under ACA. He refused to let a criticism go unmatched. Any voter who might have asked “Will I be better under another four years of Obama?” Biden showed up tonight to say ‘You betcha!’

He didn’t shy from talking economics nor war nor abortion nor debt. He savored it. For the all of the beltway mumbling that labeled Congressman Ryan a “wonk.” It was the Vice President who sold Obama’s vision and policies to voters. Biden came to Danville, KY to connect with the swing voters who are in such high political demand. He did. He went to the debate to motivate the base. He did. He took to the stage to stem the bleeding—not just in the polls, but in the media narrative. Tomorrow will show us, he did.

Moreover, he connected with seniors “AARP endorsed our health care spending”, with women “I refuse to impose my views [on abortion] on others”, with deployed soldiers “Afghans are fighting their war. Afghans!” Old man Joe even connected with younger voters “under Romney’s plan you’ll get $4600 less a year in Social Security”.

Is the election over? No. Obama-Biden received substantial momentum from tonight’s debate. But two debates remain, and voters’ memories can be short. For sure, the people in Chicago are happier tonight than they were this morning, (and last week) but a Vice Presidential debate does not determine an election outcome.

Sure, Biden changed the way voters will discuss the race at work tomorrow, how the media will report momentum, and how voters will perceive these candidates. Tonight, Joe was a good soldier, but he knows the war is yet to be won.

Authors

John Hudak

Could Obama's Debate Performance Deflate His Base?

John Hudak — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:45:00 -0400

For last night’s debate, one could argue that President Obama brought talking points to a knife fight. Though, I don’t think he was even that well-prepared. His performance ranged from scattered to irritated to meek and stood in stark contrast to Mr. Romney. The governor appeared calm, confident and ready which helped gloss over what was a truly breathtaking reinvention of his policy positions.

One question remains: will it affect voters and do the numbers shift? My colleague Bill Galston wrote last night that he expects the race to tighten, and I agree. Last night’s debate likely pushes some undecided voters toward Romney, while Obama’s numbers remain (statistically) unchanged.

A much more critical question hasn’t been asked but must: Was Obama’s performance deflating for his core supporters? In the short term, I argue yes. Having watched the debate with a group of people, among them what can be described as core supporters, “deflated” may be the most positive description.

If malaise washes over the base, the effect can be substantial, but not in the way one might expect. No, Democratic voters won’t stay home. No, Democratic donors won’t stop sending money to Chicago. But what about grassroots volunteers who the Obama groundgame depends on so thoroughly? This group feeds on hope and change; their elixir is Obama’s inspiring, lofty rhetoric. They knock on doors, phonebank, drive people to polls and conduct visibility with an enthusiasm born not wholly from Democratic ideals, but from an emotional connection to the man. Last night that enthusiasm, that fire, that emotion was as vacant from the president’s performance as it was from the hearts of debate viewers who love him the most. If the president wants a second term, this error must be corrected quickly.

After last night’s debate, Mr. Obama’s biggest worry is not whether Gallup or Rasmussen finds that 2-3% of the electorate shifted toward Mr. Romney. Ironically, he has to worry about those people who support him most—the diehard segment of that 47%.

Mr. Obama, today, you need to address your faithful. They woke up this morning as nervous and bewildered as when they went to bed. Your first job is to restore that faith. Tomorrow, you can worry about Virginia.

Authors

John Hudak

The First Presidential Debate: A Live Web Chat with John Hudak

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:30:00 -0400

Event Information

October 3, 2012
12:30 PM - 1:00 PM EDT

Online Only
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

On Wednesday evening, voters will see President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in the first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, a high-stakes matchup that could change the course of the race. As the lagging economy continues to take a toll on Americans, voters want to hear how the candidates differ on domestic policy and learn more about their plans to fix the economy.

With only seven weeks remaining in the race, what effect can the debate have on the election outcome? On October 3, Brookings expert John Hudak took your questions and previewed the debate in a live web chat moderated by Vivyan Tran of POLITICO.

12:29 Vivyan Tran: Welcome to the chat everyone, let's get started.

12:29 John Hudak: Since 1960, there have been 27 General Election Presidential Debates broadcast on television. Tonight PBS' Jim Lehrer will moderate the 28th between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Voters are wondering what to expect, what the candidates will say that is new, and what will be the effect of the debate. I hope I can answer some of these questions and more during the next half hour.

12:29 Comment from Josh G.: Do you think that Romney's remarks on the 47 percent put the nail in the coffin for his campaign, or do you think the electoral race will still be close?

12:30 John Hudak: I don't think it put the nail in his coffin, but perhaps close the casket lid. I think that he may be able to recover from this gaffe with an effective statement early on. If he doesn't, Obama will keep hammering away--hammering at the final nails in the coffin.

12:31 Comment from Anonymous: What message can we expect to hear repeated and repeated from either candidate/party at tonight's debate?

12:32 John Hudak: Obama will continue to repeat the 47% line and repeat President Bush's name. This is the best line of attack for him in terms of polling and messaging. Romney will provide lines about Obamacare and trillion dollar deficits, the lines that poll best for him. These are best suited for a debate on the economy.

12:32 Comment from J.K. Gregg: Considering the low ratings for the GOP convention in September, do you think this first debate will be Mitt Romney's first real introduction to undecided voters?

12:33 John Hudak: Gregg: Great question. What is important to distinguish here is WHO saw the conventions, not necessarily aggregate numbers. If a lot of undecideds watched the conventions, they are already introduced. However, my guess is you're right, many did not, and they're meeting Mitt for the first time-outside of TV ads. This may be too late in the game as he has been effectively painted as Mr. 47%.

12:33 Comment from VT: Are we only expecting questions about the economy?

12:35 John Hudak: The debate tonight focuses entirely on domestic affairs, is 90 mins. long and will be divided into six 15 minute parts. 45 minutes will be devoted entirely to the economy (this will compose the first three 15 minute segments). Following will be segments on health care, the role of government in society, and governance strategies. Now let me say a little about each and what effect it may have...

12:37 John Hudak: These are ideal topics for both candidates because the really provide the most stark contrasts on the issues. Unlike foreign affairs and immigration, these areas show the deepest disagreements. The way in which Obama wants to move the economy forward--spending on infrastructure, education, and society and funding it through taxation on the wealthy--differs greatly from Romney's goals of greater income and personal autonomy through reductions in spending and taxes.

12:38 John Hudak: All of these things reflect different governing strategies as well as different approaches to the proper role of government in society: Obama thinks governing assists growth and development. Romney argues it holds back such growth.

12:38 Comment from Maria: Is Obama likely to bring up Romney's 47% remarks?

12:39 John Hudak: REPEATEDLY. As I mentioned above, this issue has been Romney's biggest gaffe and hurts him with middle class voters, women and Latinos, the groups he has struggled with the most. President Clinton said earlier in the campaign that Romney's economic policies are like Bush policies on steroids...

12:40 John Hudak: The 47% comments for Romney are like Obama's you didn't build that gaffe on steroids....the exception is that Romney’s comments--even when heard in full context are brutally damaging with the voters he needs most---moderates in swing states .

12:40 Comment from Jon: Do you think we'll hear anything about the fiscal cliff tonight?

12:42 John Hudak: My money (a $10,000 bet, if you will) is on Jim Lehrer opening with the fiscal cliff or a question on it coming very early on. This is the biggest economic issue facing the nation in the short term and one that has contributed to a Henny Penny-esque dire media narrative. Both candidates MUST convey in the clearest of terms how they seek to solve this issue...

12:43 John Hudak: If they give subpar answers or speak in empty recycled platitudes, you can be certain the voters will punish them--and so will the media. This is where detail matters and detail is something that has escaped both candidates in this election cycle. If Lehrer wants to set the fuse on some fireworks, this could be it.

12:43 Comment from Christine, MD: Of the three debates, which will be the most illuminating? Is this debate the most important b/c it focuses on the economy?

12:44 John Hudak: Perhaps, Christine. But the media narrative that if Romney doesn’t hit a homerun tonight his campaign is over is FOOLISH. If Obama beats him soundly in the debate the campaign will suffer, but if it is a draw, I think we can expect the next debate to be "the illuminating one."

12:44 Comment from Anon: Could this debate really change the swing state polling?

12:45 John Hudak: This is an issue I have thought a lot about and let me take the time to offer some observations...

12:46 John Hudak: Every presidential candidate hopes that every move they make, every word they utter, every rally they attend, and every public appearance (large scale and small) will change the minds of swing voters (for the positive). If one of the candidates does that tonight it's a win. However, these candidates have very different visions of where to take America and if undecided voters haven't made up their mind yet, who knows what in tonight’s debate will help them. (See recent Saturday Night Live skit on the issue.) However, there may be another role for tonight’s debates....

12:48 John Hudak: Both candidates need a stellar ground game to win on Election night. They need their volunteers to get out the vote, motivate the faithful, drive key voters to the polls and get across the finish line. These debates can motivate those thousands of volunteers to work their hardest OR it can cause malaise...The candidate with volunteers who are only so-so about their guy, absolutely loses the election.

12:48 Comment from Anonymous: Does the vice presidential debate have any real significance?

12:50 John Hudak: Typically no. This year will likely be no different. People are electing a president, not so much a vice president and I think voters generally defer to the standard bearers to choose who they want. That said, both VP candidates struggle to say the right thing at the right time. Biden is a gaffe machine. Ryan is surgically attached to note cards--something that is either formally forbidden or is deeply damaging in a prime time debate. If one of them makes a huge mistake, then the VP debate becomes significant.

12:50 Comment From ABennet: During the "role of government in society" part - what will be important for each candidate to convey? The Republicans are very clear that they want government OUT of people's lives - Democrats tend to waver according to what's politically advantageous, no?

12:51 John Hudak: During this part of the debate candidates MUST NOT speak in blanket statements about big government vs. small government or relying on scare tactics or finger pointing. If they want to move voters--and voters that matter--they must not simply explain what they want government to do...they must explain how those policies, how that governing record, and how the "new" role of government will affect the everyday lives of everyday Americans.

12:52 John Hudak: Alternatively, it is the job of the other candidate to show how those policies will harm swing voters.

12:52 Comment From Bobi: How will Jim Lehrer's performance at tonight's debate impact the trajectory of the debate?

12:54 John Hudak: I have mixed feelings about what Lehrer will do tonight. He is obviously experienced and good at what he does, but so are the candidates. I refer you to a GOP primary debate this year where Gov Romney said "you can ask the questions you want and I'll give the answers I want". Some people thought that was a newsworthy gaffe--I thought it was a brilliant display of command and confidence...

12:55 John Hudak: It’s a strategy every presidential candidate takes and is one that Obama and Romney will take tonight. Lehrer may well sit back and let the candidates control the pace---whether that is good is open to question from voters--but might mean that he has little impact on the trajectory. The question for you then is who you want to be in command of the narrative candidates or commentators?

12:55 Comment from Liam: How do you think Romney will defend himself against the 47 % then?

12:56 John Hudak: People paid more money than me need to figure this one out. I have no idea. I will say he needs to shed the arrogant cold exterior and say "my policies will help everyone even if you won't vote for me." The way to do that well (and avoid Obama criticism) is a tough one. My guess is he comes up a bit short.

12:56 Comment From West coast: What about likeability? Are people looking for likeability in debates? Or will it help the candidates to be harsh and throw out facts?

12:57 John Hudak: Likeability plays a huge role here. The public generally dislikes Romney and likes the president. Romney needs to repair that image, but also if he appears to be bullying the President or treating the president as sub-presidential voters will see him as not only insulting the office and the man--but the man they like....it could truly backfire on him...it’s risky and a tightrope act.

12:57 Comment From Bobi: With early voting already happening, does that lessen the significance of the upcoming debates?

12:58 John Hudak: It can, but 95% of people still haven't voted and swing voters surely haven't. The people who vote now could’ve voted 6 months ago because they made up their mind. So, there will be no ultimate effect on the outcome.

12:59 John Hudak: Thanks everyone for a great discussion I hope you enjoyed as much as I did. I'll be livetweeting tonight. Follow me on Twitter @JohnJHudak

12:59 Vivyan Tran: Thanks everyone, see you next week!

A Strategy to Rebuild Manufacturing in the Mountain West

John Hudak — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Late last month, President Barack Obama issued an executive order intended to spur job creation in manufacturing. “Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency” recognizes that energy costs can substantially limit a company’s ability to be productive and grow and that there has been “an under-investment in industrial energy efficiency.” This order seeks to aid manufacturers nationwide, but the politics and policy of the order provide an opportunity for the Mountain West region that state and local leaders must seize.

The executive order requires that federal agencies bring together state and local officials, private sector leaders, and others to help address the problem of energy efficiency and motivate private investment in manufacturing. The Obama administration wants to “provide technical assistance to states and manufacturers” and mount a public information campaign about the cost-saving benefits of making industry more energy-efficient. Part of the order also directs federal agencies to “use existing federal authorities, programs and policies to support investment in industrial energy efficiency.” In effect, the president wants more funding funneled to manufacturers and he has told his hand-picked appointees to begin delivering that funding.

Specifically, the executive order will mean that existing energy- and manufacturing-related federal grant programs will support Combined Heat and Power, an energy system that captures excess or emitted energy (such as secondary heat) and converts it into usable energy on site for factory climate control. With CHP, manufacturers will not need to purchase additional energy to heat or cool their facility, a savings that drives down production costs and provides opportunities to expand employment and productivity.

Read the full piece at the Las Vegas Sun »

Authors

John Hudak

Publication: The Las Vegas Sun

Brookings: Experts - John Hudak

Defeat of Toomey-Manchin: Neither Cloture nor Closure for Victims of Gun Violence

Authors

Applauding Connecticut’s Gun Control Legislation

Authors

The Biden Gun Control Task Force: Risks and Rewards

Authors

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: The Benefits of Politics as Usual

Authors

Gun Control and the Political Climate: A Live Web Chat with John Hudak

Event Information

A Response to Sandy Hook

Authors

Challenges Facing President Obama During His Second Administration

Event Information

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

Republicans: In Victory or Defeat

Authors

What Polling Really Tells Us

Video

Authors

Presidential Pandering: How Elections Determine the Exercise of Executive Power in the U.S. and Colombia

Downloads

Authors

Private Biden, Reporting for Duty

Authors

Could Obama's Debate Performance Deflate His Base?

Authors

The First Presidential Debate: A Live Web Chat with John Hudak

Event Information

A Strategy to Rebuild Manufacturing in the Mountain West

Authors