Don Reeves – Introduction to U.S. National Politics

SWA #4: Kamala Harris & Cory Booker

Kamala Harris uses a broad form of rhetoric in slogans and details that use veiled language to contrast her with current President Donald Trump. A banner slogan emphasizes the decency of those in power before fading out to her main page. Kamala Harris generally views her efforts as “fights” and emphasizes her commitment to justice, particularly for those who may be seen as oppressed in America. She is described as an “advocate for the voiceless,” and believes in fighting injustice through economic means as well. Both Harris and Cory Booker are people of color, and this is emphasized on their websites as parts of their backgrounds that give credence to their efforts to ameliorate gaps in society. For his part, Booker has stated on Twitter that he is not a fan of grandiose slogans, but his current slogan is “Together, America, we will rise.” This is a testament to his belief in overcoming racial divides, and the first information block on his site is dedicated to criticizing President Trump in veiled language regarding the divisions in the country. Just like Harris, he is using this to differentiate himself from Trump and appeal to the large portion of people dissatisfied with the current presidency. That is not to say that Harris does not wish to bring the country together, but she is more focused on exacting justice in American society for the underdogs, which is in line with her previous role as an Attorney General in California. Her slogan is, fittingly, “For the People.” Also of interest is that both candidates’ pages clearly state that they rely entirely on voter support, having refused to accept donations from corporations, political action committees, or lobbyists. This makes sense for Democratic candidates, who advocate against such practices for the most part.

Kamala Harris presents herself as someone who will take massive action for minorities and in the large schematics of government, almost like a prosecutor. To do so, she seems more issue-oriented. Her site under “Meet Kamala” immediately lists her accomplishments and ‘battles’ she waged in her political career. She would appeal to voters who see the current administration as complacent regarding the large but downtrodden echelons of society in the U.S. Still, though, she uses a picture of her with a smiling black child to ensure that she does not come across as just a policy wonk. While Booker certainly mentions his fights against injustice on his page, he is definitely a person-to-person candidate. This is difficult in presidential campaigning, but he features pictures of him walking and meeting with everyday people. It also describes how he opted not to join a large law firm after graduating, and instead fought against unfair landlord practices. His “about” section also speaks about how he “still lives in Newark’s Central Ward,” a historically urban and black section of New Jersey stricken with post-industrial poverty. This is definitely an appeal made by a person-to-person candidate.

News sources seem to follow the fairly new trend of Democratic presidential candidates joining a movement to reject PAC or lobbyist donations. Both Harris and Booker have received attention from news outlets for being parts of this movement. At a time when donations are crucial, both pages make it clear near the “donate now” sections that voters, not corporations, are responsible for their campaigns to generate funds.

Gordon’s SWA #3

Domestic Policy

Foreign Policy

· Strengthened border security (“wall funding” bill)

· Reduced taxation to continue economic growth

· Tax reductions for blue-collar families

· Economy-side legislation? (certain groups succeeding in higher numbers than in the past)

· Deregulation

· Eliminate the “death tax;” Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

· Nationwide paid family leave

· Intentions to nominate individuals to courts

· First Step Act (signed)

· Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act & other abortion regulations

· U.S. is succeeding in oil and natural gas, implying legislation supporting this development

· “Cutting-edge” infrastructure

· Reducing the price of prescription drugs

· School choice (nationwide)

· Paid family leave

· U.S.-China Trade Deal (or significant renegotiation)

· Increase defense budget

· Ensure full participation (monetarily) of NATO members

· Venezuela (action possible?)

· Defeat ISIS but withdraw troops from Syria

· Stop anti-Semitism (support Israel?)

In his State of the Union address, President Trump openly expressed a willingness to work in a bipartisan capacity to address rising prescription drug prices, improve infrastructure, and fight diseases like HIV/AIDS and cancer. He also implied a willingness to work towards further criminal justice reform when he pointed out Matthew Charles, a black man who was freed from prison because of the bipartisan First Step Act. In a notably bipartisan declaration, Trump informed Congress and the American people that he would include in his budget plan an act delineating paid family leave, an unprecedented act if it were passed that would no doubt have appeal across the aisle. The fine print of this inclusion is that it would also require the budget to provide funds for the construction of the controversial southern border wall, which makes this seem like more of an enticement crafted to appease Democrats in Congress than a bona fide act of bipartisanship. Although not necessarily indicating a direct involvement in the future, he also applauded the increase in job creation and congressional participation for women. With the exception of these key issues, however, Donald Trump did not signal any real openness to compromising with the House’s Democratic majority. Although some may claim that his discussion on border security constitutes compromise, it is still largely on his terms.

Most of Trump’s stances on executive versus congressional power were made evident in his discussion of border security and immigration. Although he says that “now is the time for Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration,” which acknowledges Congress’ prerogative, he declares that their will ought to be aligned with his vision of immigration security. As the recent government shutdown (and potential future shutdown) indicates, this is simply untrue. He sees that “Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our Government,” but only if their bill includes his urgently-demanded funding for constructing a border wall. Using his Executive powers, he “ordered another 3,750 troops to our southern border” to provide additional security. He therefore sees his most pressing issues as requiring the full exercise of these powers, even if it grinds against the check provided by Congress and their Constitutional responsibility to ultimately pass and enact legislation. He also praises the work of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which falls under the Executive branch, in apprehending illegal immigrants. Because they fall more centrally under his command, he is more apt to laud them for their accomplishments, which are reflective of his priorities as President and head of the Executive branch.

Stacey Abrams responded succinctly to President Trump’s speech, addressing several key Democratic counterpoints. Although he glaringly failed to mention it in his speech, she decries the plight of furloughed federal employees as a result of the government shutdown, for which Democrats overwhelmingly believe the President is responsible. She echoes his sentiments on coming together as people and as Americans first, rather than allowing political parties to determine our sense of identity. Nonetheless, she states that the Republican administration is responsible for failing to cooperate, reacting “timidly” to gun violence, and creating taxation and economic burdens that fall unfairly on the shoulders of the middle and lower class. Furthermore, she lambasts the administration for “[choosing] to cage children and tear families apart” and reacting negatively to immigrants. She then lists off three core Democratic issues; the Affordable Care Act, climate change legislation, and LGBT defense; as three areas where the government has not acted justifiably. Interestingly, much of her rhetoric uses the pro-America, pro-unity flair that Trump used in his own speech. She also discusses criminal justice reform, which the President himself praised with the aforementioned reference to Charles and the FSA. However, given the shorter time allotted to her rebuttal, she is much more apt to speak to specific policies and issues that she feels are being neglected than Donald Trump, who used pathos-laden clichés on America’s greatness and how people should come together instead of being torn apart by their differences. A number of these issues were scarcely mentioned by Trump in his actual speech, which makes this so-called ‘rebuttal’ seem more anthemic than reactionary in some respects.

As President Trump fleetingly mentioned, the elimination of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act leaves states to decide how they will react with a reduced pool of funding for upholding affordable healthcare. Maryland must contend with these changes in the General Assembly. The issue of mandatory paid leave also came up in Trump’s State of the Union. Although he was speaking of supporting paid leave for childbirth, this issue is relevant to Maryland’s state legislative agenda because there is currently a stalemate between Governor Larry Hogan and Democratic members over passing a bill requiring paid sick leave. President Trump did not bring up the issue of legalizing medical marijuana, an issue that is of great import at the state level. His recent statements outside of the speech have indicated that he would favor sweeping legalization.

Gordon’s SWA #2

David J. Trone is the Member of Congress for Maryland’s 6^th Congressional District. Trone is a Democrat, and is serving his first term, which began January 2019. The district is a Democratic safe seat, and he won the general election with 57.5% of the vote. He had previously run for and lost the 2016 primary election for Maryland’s 8^th District. He does not currently have committee-level assignments but is a member of the Democratic Caucus. On his website, Trone makes his positions on most major issues visible and clearly-stated. He emphasizes his philanthropy and entrepreneurial savvy, while also appealing to fairly mainstream Democratic ideology, which fits well with his constituency. His main three issues are education, veterans, and the opioid crisis. On education, Trone believes in increasing funding for schools and educators and closing the achievement gap. He believes that this is crucial to raising the level and quality of education in public schools for all students, regardless of their background. On veterans, he seeks to bolster the funding for Veterans’ Assistance healthcare, including mental health and post-traumatic stress therapy, decrease homelessness, and generally ensure that no soldier comes home facing undue challenges to their welfare. On the opioid crisis, Trone wishes to use governmental agencies like the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to plan for a massive response to attenuate its effects on the population.

The 6^th Congressional District of Maryland is a mostly urban (~85%) district in Maryland. Although much of the district is farmland, it encompasses mostly urbanized Montgomery County, which is adjacent to Washington, D.C., as well as Frederick, the second-largest city in the state behind Baltimore. Trone addresses the concerns of rural farmers and landowners, located largely in the wholly-encompassed counties to the northwest, while also catering to the heavy business interests found in-district, particularly in proximity to the capital. It is not an incredibly diverse district; it is 68% white, 14% black, 11% Asian, and 13% Hispanic. The reason for this is the subject of a current Supreme Court lawsuit, which contests that Democrats gerrymandered the district to cover vastly white regions of western Maryland while sharply excluding the regions heading east towards the historically black city of Baltimore. The neighboring 8^th district and especially the 7^th next to it hold most of the black population, and therefore the Democratic vote once again. Additionally, the three western counties (Garret, Allegheny, Washington) bordering West Virginia would be solidly Republican districts, but their representation is diluted by including the overwhelmingly wealthy and Democratic suburbs immediately northwest of the District of Columbia.

Michael J. Hough is the General Assembly (State House) Senator for Maryland District 4. He has served as State Senator since 2015. As a Republican, he occupies a safe seat, having won 67.2% of the vote in the elections. He is on the Judicial Proceedings Committee and the Maryland Veterans Caucus. Hough “believes in the founding principles of our country; limited government, individual responsibility, and lower taxes.” He supports lenient and reformist justice for non-violent criminals, while increasing penalties for violent offenders. He stands for the protection of property rights from the government and supports Americans’ Second Amendment rights. He is considered one of the most conservative state senators in Maryland by some sources. As for State Delegates, Maryland has 3 in the 4^th District: Barrie S. Ciliberti, Daniel L. Cox, and Jesse T. Pippy. All three are Republicans in safe seats in District 4. Ciliberti has been in office since 2015. He is on the Appropriations committee. Ciliberti is a mainstream Republican; he supports tax reductions, the right to life, and the Second Amendment. Cox was elected in 2018, and therefore has no committee assignments yet. Dan Cox makes his stances clear on all pivotal issues: the right to life, Second Amendment rights and other defenses from government overreach, property rights, thorough border security and deportation of illegal immigrants, and galvanizing the rights of farmers. Finally, Pippy has been in the House of Delegates since the 2018 election. He has no appointments or committees at the time. His main focal point in the House is on modernizing Maryland’s economic structure with market capitalism aligned towards small businesses. He tends to take a moderate Evangelical-conservative position on most other issues.

Maryland’s 4^th State Senate District is overwhelmingly rural and white. It is drawn specifically to exclude the more populous and diverse cities of Frederick and Carroll Creek. Because of its heavily agricultural constituency, all state-level representatives thoroughly address their commitment to farmers and ensuring that their needs are being met through legislative means. 91% of the district is white, so it is decidedly lacking in diversity.

Gordon Reeves SWA #1

Maryland’s 62^nd Governor is Larry Hogan, a Republican from Anne Arundel County. An incumbent, Hogan campaigned recently on his popular status as a bipartisan governor, as evidenced by his success in passing legislation in Maryland’s House of Delegates that contained provisions appealing to both Republicans and Democrats. The 141-member House of Delegates is the “lower” chamber of the General Assembly, which is Maryland’s bicameral legislature; the “upper” is the State Senate, with a membership of 47 Senators. The Senate leader is Thomas Mike Miller Jr., a Democrat. The Democratic party has the majority in the Senate, and their leader is Douglas Peters. The Senatorial minority leader, representing the Republican party, is J.B. Jennings. Like the Senate, the House is controlled by Democrats. The majority leader is Kathleen Dumais, and the Republican minority leader is Nicholaus Ripke. Maryland’s legislative body is currently a divided government, with a Republican Governor but a Democratic-led General Assembly. Politically, Maryland is a more liberal state that typically votes for Democrats in both state and national elections. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats have a considerable margin over their Republican counterparts. There are 32 Democratic seats in the Senate, to 15 Republican seats. As for the House, 99 seats are held by Democrats while 42 are held by Republicans. Nonetheless, Governor Hogan’s bipartisan efforts often override the polarizing forces of either party, and his Republican membership ensures that their political interests are fairly represented in legislation. Both parties have been able to pass party-approved bills under Hogan.

One of the major legislative goals that will be prevalent in the opening session of 2019 is the effort to override Governor Hogan’s veto on a bill requiring Maryland employers to provide sick leave to their employees. If and when this override occurs (which it likely will, as pundits have predicted), the next question will be to determine what shape the specifics of a sick leave bill would take. The Democratic leadership has made it evident that they consider themselves the vanguards of this portion of the agenda. Maryland must also choose how it will respond to tax cuts enacted by the Trump administration, and if it will follow or oppose this trend for state-level taxes. Additionally, federal legislation has created an array of complex issues in the field of health care that the state has to navigate carefully. Namely, the removal of the individual mandate created by the Affordable Care Act under President Obama, the halting of cost-sharing reduction payments, and low levels of funding for CHIP have forced the legislature to act decisively in order to ensure that many Marylanders remain effectively covered for their medical expenses. Finally, the Governor and General Assembly will be considering the legal status of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana is currently legal in the state, but it remains divisive on both sides of the aisle as to how and to what degree cannabis for medical purposes should be legally controlled, if at all.

I reside in Maryland’s 4^th District for state-level elections. My representative in the State Senate is Michael Hough, a Republican. According to his official website (https://senatorhough.com/), Hough “believes in the founding principles of our country; limited government, individual responsibility, and lower taxes.” He supports lenient and reformist justice for non-violent criminals, while increasing penalties for violent offenders. He stands for the protection of property rights from the government and supports Americans’ Second Amendment rights. He is considered one of the most conservative state senators in Maryland by some sources. Based on this information, I would say that he represents me well, although I would prefer that he take a greater stand for environmental protection. As for the House of Representatives, Jesse Pippy and Dan Cox represent District 4, and both of them are Republicans. Pippy’s main focal point in the House is on modernizing Maryland’s economic structure with market capitalism aligned towards small businesses. He tends to take a moderate Evangelical-conservative position on most other issues (https://jessepippy.com/). Dan Cox makes his stances clear on all pivotal issues: the right to life, Second Amendment rights and other defenses from government overreach, property rights, thorough border security and deportation of illegal immigrants, and galvanizing the rights of farmers. Both of these Senators represent me well and likely most of their overwhelmingly rural constituency; I especially appreciate Cox’s commitment to protecting the food supply and ensuring that farmers can remain afloat, even in tough economic circumstances.

Table of Consultations

https://senatorhough.com/ (2)

https://jessepippy.com/ (3)