Introduction to U.S. National Politics

I.

Legislative Proposals

Domestic	Foreign
An infrastructure bill	U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement
Prohibition of late-term abortion	United States Reciprocal Trade Act
Lower prescription drug prices
Border wall funding

II.

During his 2019 State of the Union address, President Trump mentioned working with Democrats and bipartisanship on multiple occasions, which felt rather in contrast to his prior speeches. One of the first issues he briefly mentioned as part of his nonpartisan “American” agenda was infrastructure. Trump mentioned how the issue of our “crumbling infrastructure” should be important to both parties, and clarified that it is important for him as well. While Trump didn’t express being open to compromise, he did emphasize the middle ground between him and Democrats which also felt different from the past. In a fairly predictable move, Trump also asked Democrats and Republicans to come together and address what he described as an “urgent national crisis” of illegal immigration at our southern border. In addition to advocating for a steel barrier, Trump mentioned the need for additional investment in other areas which Democrats have been more supportive of like further drug detection at ports of entry. I think the fact that Trump has come such a long way from his campaign promise of a concrete wall across the entire border shows he is open to some compromise. Trump also signaled his interest in working with Democrats on healthcare issues, by calling for lower drug prices and protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. Beyond those healthcare issues, Trump called for additional funding to eradicate HIV and AIDS, and childhood cancer. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on exactly how to achieve these goals, these are all fairly bipartisan issues.

Regarding his view of executive power, Trump spoke out against checks and balances by saying “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!” Obviously referring to existing and potential investigations into him and his campaign, this statement seemed in-line with Trump’s willingness to shut the government down as bargaining power to get his way, and his general distaste with any oversight. His address in general however did emphasize bipartisanship which makes sense given how Republicans lost control of the house. Additionally, I think it was significant that Trump did not mention an executive order to fund his border wall like he had previously talked about. I think this does signal some understanding of the limitations of executive power by Trump and his administration.

One of Stacey Abrams’ main criticisms of Trump was using his self-proclaimed shut down to get his way politically. She described the shutdown as “a stunt, engineered by the president of the United States, one that betrayed every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people but our values.” Abrams also directly contradicted Trump by saying his tax bill “rigged the system against working people” while Trump said “We passed a massive tax cut for working families”. While her speech was primarily a rebuke of President Trump, there was some common ground between them. Specifically, Abrams mentioned rising prescription drug prices, and Democrats’ willingness to support secure borders. While she did speak out against Trump’s wall, she expressed that compassionate treatment at the border doesn’t necessarily mean open borders. Finally, Abrams criticized Trump for his stance on abortion and women’s rights.

III.

            First of all, this is assuming the comparison is to Part II of Short Writing Assignment I. Back home in Pennsylvania my state legislative representatives are both Democrats so their agendas are slightly different from President Trump’s. Trump placed an emphasis on oil when talking about energy, but my state representatives are both more in favor of renewable energy. Trump portrayed illegal immigration as being a divisive issue of high importance to working class Americans, but this issue doesn’t really seem to be very significant in Pennsylvania. The main point of intersection I found was with healthcare and drug prices, which is becoming an important issue for both Democrats and Republicans regardless of geography.

Fred Prichard

SWA3

 

Foreign policy
Trade- Reciprocal Trade Act
National security- military buildup
Taking on the problem of “global freeloading and delivers fairness and price transparency for American patients”
Try for peace in Middle East- bringing troops home

Domestic policy
Border security,
Infrastructure
Lowering cost of health care and prescription drugs-protecting people with pre-existing conditions
immigration
Fighting AIDS, childhood cancer, late term abortions

Throughout the speech President Trump used bipartisan cooperative language. For instance, he starts off the speech suggesting that America “is at a moment of unlimited potential” as this new session of Congress begins. He goes on to say that millions of fellow citizens are watching in the hopes that the United States “will govern not as two parties but as one Nation.” He then says that his agenda isn’t a Republican or a Democrat agenda, rather “the agenda of the American people.” This bipartisan rhetoric is extremely important for our nation because politics has gotten so polarized in America. In today’s age, people are so invested in party politics that they do not see that both parties present good ideas that could advance our society in a positive way. Furthermore, “gridlock” occurs when members of Congress only vote the way their party tells them to, which results in political stagnation. Trump cites bipartisan legislation dealing with the opioid crisis, veterans reform, and criminal justice reform, to show that Congress can accomplish great things when working together. He then suggests that Congress must continue to work together to keep this great progress going.
Language that hinted at Trump’s views of Congressional oversight of the executive branch was his alluding to the Mueller investigation. Trump says that the only things that could stop America’s economic miracle are “foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations.” He then says, “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way. We must be united at home to defeat our adversaries abroad.” These quotes suggest that Trump views Congressional oversight as an impediment to the progression of our nation. It seems like he is saying that, in order for Congress to accomplish things for the American people, they must focus on issues concerning our society, rather than his own potential misdoings. Furthermore, if Congress is rallying against him, and America doesn’t work as a collective, then foreign powers could more easily take advantage of us. Trump expresses his views on the importance of Congress by stating, “think of this Capitol- think of this very chamber, where lawmakers before you voted to end slavery, to build railroads and the highways, to defeat fascism, to secure civil rights, to face down an evil empire.” Through this language, Trump shows the great things that Congress has done, and then he suggests that even greater things can be accomplished if Congress works together.
In the response by the Democratic Party, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams mostly disagreed with the President. However, some of what she said highlighted issues with a potential for compromise. A major point of disagreement with the President that Abrams suggests was Trumps hardline on immigration. She claimed that America thrives with the “presence of immigrants, not walls.” It seems that Abrams and the Democratic party disagree with the idea they believe a wall would symbolize, rather than its functionality. Whereas Trump believes a wall to be an effective means of securing the border regardless of the message it may send to immigrants. However, Abrams called for a “bipartisan 21st century immigration plan,” which presumably would cover some sort of border security. Additionally, Abrams blamed the President for the government shutdown, calling it a political stunt. Abrams suggested that it must be through Congress “coming together, not shutting down” to keep our government functioning.
The legislative agenda outlined during the SOTUA and the agenda outlined in my state legislature is similar in some regards. The major similarity is combating the drug epidemic. Trump spoke about how illegal drugs are destroying many communities across the country. In West Virginia, both illegal drugs, and certain prescription drugs such as painkillers are destroying our community. Another issue that appeared in both agendas is the need for lower prescription medications. This is a major problem in West Virginia as well, because people often can’t afford certain medications, so they turn to the “street” to obtain drugs that are often dangerous and addictive.

Domestic Agenda	Foreign Agenda
Budget for Congress	Developing Countries: Women Business Development
Increased Border Security Funding	U.S.M.C.A for N.A.F.T.A
Infrastructure Bill	Reciprocal Trade Act
Lower pharmaceutical costs	Curtail Presence in the Middle East
Prohibit Late-Term Abortion
Childhood Cancer research funding

II.

The speech given by president Trump had a plethora of words that affirmed his willingness and optimism for compromise within the current divided congress. His opening statements asserted a desire to govern as “one nation” not “two parties”. There were three key issues that the President specifically catered his speech towards compromise and collaboration. The obvious and principle one being on illegal immigration legislation, and the two subsequent being the infrastructure bill and late term abortions.

When talking about the duties of Congress relative to this issue, he says that “We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens”. This specific line is preceded by action that the President took in order to increase border security, without the direct consent of Congress. He built urgency before this phrase by explicating the reasons for his actions, and then turns to congress and speaks in the first person plural to address that all of the legislators in the room should feel the same urgency to act as he did. This particular issue, is more of an issue of collaboration than it is compromise. To elaborate, Trump specifically talked about the benefits of walls in decreasing illegal immigration, and further described specifics of the wall itself, and other necessary security precautions that he wishes Congress to take into consideration. His rhetoric in talking about these issues does not give off a sense of compromise, but rather the need for Congress to act in accordance with pressing security concerns. President Trump explained an issue, proposed his solutions for them, and then admonished Congress with the use of a single word: “We…”. He is aware of his inability to act in the scale that is necessary without them, and is more calling for cooperative action than compromise.

The two subsequent issues were more oriented towards compromise that border security was. When touching on his desire to better the infrastructure within the United States, President Trump said “This is not an option. This is a necessity”.  Before stating this, he noted that “I am willing to work with you on legislation that will deliver important infrastructure development…”. This leans towards compromise more so than border security because he didn’t propose much of a solution on his own, other then that the bill should support “cutting edge industries of the future.” This gives Congress more freedom by omission of specific infrastructural goals. The mention of late term abortion was a nice blend between the two. President Trump laid out the travesty of the bills passed in New York and Virginia that allow late term and post-birth abortion practices. He was clear on his position about the sanctity of lives, both “born and unborn”. After doing so, he asked Congress to “prohibit late term abortion who can feel pain in the mother’s womb”. This in and of itself is a kind of compromise. Upon recent scrutiny that the Republican party wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, this clarification for the prohibition of late term abortions where the baby can feel pain is a few steps lower then some more common party opinions on the subject. Within all three cases, President Trump’s rhetoric does show that he is optimistic to work with congress, and compromise if necessary.

President Trump definitely believes in a more powerful executive branch relative to the foundations laid out in the Constitution. He didn’t wait for Congress to give him permission to send troops to the southern border to protect it from the incoming caravan. His rhetoric showed no concern of if he overstepped his bounds. This is rather problematic because he constantly addresses the need for Congress to work with him, and believes that they are a powerful branch as well that can act as an impediment to the strong executive branch that he believes in. In terms of Congressional oversight, his strong position on the powers vested in both branches didn’t show a quarrel with Congress being too overreaching or powerful. While not in the speech, it is obvious that Trump has believed in a strong executive branch that can step around Congress if need be. His administration has utilized executive orders on many occasions and as such demonstrate his view of the role of the executive branch.

Lastly, the Democratic response to the S.O.T.U was surprisingly negative and barley touched on anything that the President actually talked about. The first complaint from Mrs. Abrams was the Presidents frail response to children going through active shooter drills in school. Education or school shootings were not mentioned in the address and it seems to drum up preliminary animosity to fuel the more rational critiques given later. Stacey Abrams said nothing about any of the good things that the economy has done for women or any of the minority groups that Trump substantiated in his address. She mentioned farmers and lower income families that rely on community and family and friends and the overall generosity of their immediate vicinity, which somehow coalesced into the idea that it should be the government’s job to fix these particular deficiencies in American life. This lead to a critique of the government shut down, which accused Trump of being the puppet master with no real substantiation as to why. It stretched from here to critiquing his border and immigration policies by repeating things that Trump said in his own speech. The only notable difference is that President Trump said “Legal Immigrants” enrich our communities and Mrs. Abrams said “Immigrants”. This shows a fundamental disagreement on what is good for the country and from the response given my Mrs. Abrams, there is little room to compromise on border security because there is no agreement on terms. If a policy, like Arizona’s SB 1070, aims to redress legitimate concerns on illegal immigration, then according to the rhetoric by Mrs. Abrams, this is discriminatory against immigrants. There seems to be little hope for compromise here. It is important to note that there was no response about MS 13 or the sex and drug trafficking that the President claimed would decrease with border security. Immigration was the principal issue of discontentment, and, at least in terms of rhetoric, shows little hope for compromise. Fortunately there was one important issue that makes compromise look possible. Both Trump’s address and Stacey Abram’s rebuttal voiced a desire to lower the cost and expand the availability of the pharmaceutical industry and general medical practice at large. This, unfortunately, is torn across a ideological line. Stacey Abrams argued that the way to do so is through the expansion of government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, while Trump encourages transparency and market incentivisation. Luckily, this ideological divide can bring about compromise. Both “solutions” are not mutually exclusive and it seems feasible to be able to utilize a little give and take in order to help combine these two methodologies of solving the same issue .

There are two commonalities between the Alaska state legislative agenda and Trump’s address: Criminals and the Middle Class. Trump passed the First Steps Act that freed Matthew Charles is a step in criminal justice reform. The Governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy, said in his inaugural address that he wanted a war on criminals. One way he has done this is through reforming Alaska Senate Bill 91, which deals with sexual assault, drug sentencing times, and judicial discretion. While in some cases he has strengthened drug offence laws, there have been similar sized relaxation for first and minor offences. The second similarity is the rise of the middle class. During the first two years of Trump’s presidency, there have been 600,000 more manufacturing jobs created. Majority of these jobs are for middle America. The state of Alaska has the impetus for such success as well, but it has yet to be achieved. Alaska is in a mild recession. Mike Dunleavy plans to lower taxes and reduce government spending in order to both balance the budget and incentivise the market to bring jobs back into the state.

 

Devon Hopkins

Coral

Intro to US Natl Politics

02/11/19

State of the Union Address Assignment

 

Foreign Policy	Domestic Policy
New MCA (Mexico, Canada, America) which will replace NAFTA US Reciprocal Trade Act	Fairness and price transparency for Americans $500 mill over next 10 years for cancer

 

1.         From the begging of the President’s State of the Union Address the President did not stray away from the idea of working with the House Democratic majority. He rarely addressed individual parties and continued to make the point that in order for his plans to be successful all parties would have to work together. President Trump rarely mentioned specific ways he would compromise, but he used a lot of general statements that gave a good idea to the kind of work he wants to get done. Some of the issues Trump addresses include tax reduction, employment issues, and energy conservation (specifically oil and natural gas). He also doesn’t mention too many specific legislative proposals, but he mentions general topics he would focus on improving in the future. Some topics discussed by Trump on foreign policy include illegal immigration (a common sense proposal to end the crisis on the Southern border), trade relations, equal tariff prices with other countries, and an infrastructure investment. Topics brought up by Trump involving domestic policy include lower health care and prescription drugs (as well as protecting patients with pre-existing conditions), fairness and price transparency, school choice for American children, and prohibiting late-term abortion of children.
2.        Trump rarely addresses or hints at the views he has on the executive branch. Most mentions of other members of congress as a whole stated that he was willing to work with everyone in regards to making improvements for the country. His language suggests that he will exert his Presidency to his full power in order to make sure his goals are achieved such as his willingness to build a wall at the southern border. His language did not give much insight on how he feels about checks and balances or his views of Congressional oversight of the executive branch. In regards to Congress as a co-equal branch his language suggests his is willing to work with all members equally as long as it is in terms of supporting his short and long term goals.

III.         Following the SOTUA came the democratic response delivered by Stacey Abrams. In this she brings up issues such as federal workers not receiving their paychecks in weeks, education prices increasing, gun safety, the republican tax bill, voters rights, and healthcare. The more obvious issues Abrams refers to include the government shutdown and Trump’s attempt to build a wall at the southern border. There is room for compromise on certain issues such as health control which both parties have mentioned needs to be improved as long as they can work together. Similarly to Trump, the one thing Abrams states is that both parties would have to work together and negotiate in order for any improvements to be made.

IIII.        The legislative agenda outlined during the SOTUA doesn’t necessarily represent the agenda outlined in my own state legislature and this is most probably because my state representative for district 1 in Illinois is a democrat. They don’t necessarily go along the same lines because one agenda is for the country as a whole while the other is more focused on a specific surrounding area. However there were a couple of similar issues to be dealt with on both agendas which both include improving health care as well as improving education. These are both nation-wide issues and as long as negotiations can be made and all parties can work together and compromise it will hopefully lead to better results in the future.

         

As the President neared the close of the State of the Union Address this past Tuesday, he vehemently asserted the powerful words: “the state of the union is strong;” standing as an objectively controversial statement in the midst of deep-set partisanship among America’s legislators and people. The President’s agenda setting was comprised of legislation surrounding infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, and trade. Before addressing the specifics, however, the President remarked that these legislative ideas would ideally be met among a cooperative Congress. He maintained that “many of us [U.S. politicians] campaigned on the same core promises,” including a string of abstract policies that have been the subject of intense debate across the country for a number of years. As he dialed in upon each facet of the agenda, he continuously pointed remarks at the expected gridlock within the U.S. House of Representatives, hoping to preempt the imminent struggle among legislators. Justifying these comments, the President charged partisanship with being responsible for inefficiency and derailing economic growth within America. Within these remarks, the President labeled partisanship as “pointless destruction” of what he believes to be an evident avenue to progress within the U.S. Tension filled rhetoric was peppered in throughout the address, as the President pushed for coalition building within Congress, while simultaneously failing to revise or compromise on the highly contested policies found within his political platform, including, most notably, his proposal of a wall on the Southern border. The President urged the Senate to put partisanship aside and to confirm the vast body of nominees that have left positions within the Executive Branch empty for some time. Despite this isolated call, it appeared that instead of infusing his speech with a sense of harmony among the–now partially divided–Executive and Legislative Branches, he focused his efforts on the division across the bodies of Congress. The President then set out the agenda he was interested in pursuing throughout his tenure:

Domestic Policy Agenda	Foreign Policy Agenda
-Ending “illegal” immigration, namely by implementing stricter immigration policies and by pursing the wall on the Southern Border	-Tightening trade policies that favor America more -U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in replacement of NAFTA -combat “global free loading” -pursue “economic empowerment for women in developing countries”
-Investing in infrastructure throughout the country
-Lowering the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs on the market	-Make market “fairer” in regard to prescription drugs internationally
-Combating childhood cancer
-Implementing paid family leave
-Legislating on late-term abortion
-Investing in and bolstering the U.S. Military	-Push for military alliances to accept more                of financial burden

In her rebuttal Stacey Abrams challenged the President not entirely on the types of issues he addressed, but rather on his approach to such issues. Reflecting on the recent governmental shutdown, Abrams cited the demonstration as a political maneuver that disregarded the very real impact on American lives. She remarked that immigration policy should be crafted with “compassion,” and showed understandable disdain for the current administration’s actions within this policy sector. Finally, Abrams argued that healthcare needed an expansion across the country to protect the lives of Americans. Within her own proposals she touched on the issue of education, calling for legislation to address the immense financial burdens incurred by students pursuing post-secondary schooling. Furthermore, Abrams highlighted the issue of gun violence and the need for gun control in the context of schools within America. She highlighted how despite the assertion of wage growth, wages are still not growing in parallel with the increasing cost of living. To conclude she spoke to the core of democracy, calling for a look into voter suppression across the U.S.

In comparison to my state legislator, I did recognize some discrepancies within the actual issues being addressed. Evidently, the federal government must legislate on issues beyond the scope of state policy, however some issues should have found overlap within the President’s address. The most prominent issue that was left unaddressed was education. Within my state government, it is impossible to find a politician without education on their platform, understandably so, as this issue is so central to the lives of most Americans. However, the president neglected education all together which displays either a disregard for the issue or a view that the issue was not a necessary topic of concern at the current state. However, there was some overlap among issues such as healthcare. Regardless it is clear that my own state legislature may have differing viewpoints and policy initiatives then the current administration.

Section 1:
Foreign policies:
Making of the wall- law enforcement at the border humanitarian assistance, law enforcement, drug detection, and loop holes to end child smuggling
Imposing tariffs on china (making a new trade deal) – protect American jobs, reduce chronic trade deficit, and end unfair trade practices
Reciprocal trade act- charging other countries the same amount for the same product
NATO- increase in defense spending

Domestic policies:
USMCA- bring back manufacturing jobs
Lower costs of health care and prescription drugs
Global freeloading giving- price transparency for American patients
School choice for American children- help parents pay for school
Paid leave for parents
Prohibit the late term abortion

Section 2:
The government division was something that was prominent throughout the State of the Union address; more specifically, when Trump was referring to the benefits of building the wall. Most, if not all, of the democrats were sitting down and there was a clear distinction between what the republicans believe and what the democrats believe. There was not a hint of compromise because he ended his statement on immigration by stating that no matter what the wall will get built. There was no hint of letting others factor into his decision and he is set on constructing the wall. Although, it is something that he has been promising to make, yet it has been two years where he has promised that Mexico will pay for the completion of it, but it hasn’t happened. He knows the negative implications that it would cause, and he still promises to make it. The way that Trump is trying to portray the United States and the power that he has is overwhelming. He repeatedly spoke about the very “little” impact that other countries have on the United States. For example, when he was speaking about the NATO contract and how he demanded an increase in defense tariffs, he claimed that many believed it could not happen. It demonstrates how he holds himself to very high standards and thinks he can do things others can’t do. There is a small mention about having both parties work with each other to help pass this legislation. For a decision that impacts the United States heavily, it is important that both parties agree or disagree with this because it could potentially change a lot the way that other countries view the United States.
In the democratic response, Stacey Abrams explains that building a wall only causes disturbance and how the United States thrives from having immigrants. She also states the disagreement toward the abortion right in the case of Roe v. Wade, which he is trying to change. Stacey Abrams also speaks on the differing opinion on how there are still groups that are marginalized, such as the LGBTQ community. The fact that there is a huge discontent on the side of the democrats is concerning because it demonstrates that Trump really doesn’t take into consideration everything that is happening and the way that they feel towards some of these topics. By trying to portray himself as an educated leader, he is causing a division between the U.S citizens and creating more racial tension.

Section 3:
The agendas for Puerto Rico and the United States are very different. In comparison, the United States seems to be more focused in fixing international affairs and doing things to establish itself as the strongest power. On the other hand, it seems like Puerto Rico is only focusing in trying to fix the issues that it faces. For example, it is trying to fix problems that are centered in environmental well-being and problems that are impacting the community. It seems that Trump does not care about what half of congress believes by trying to institute things that go against something that they advocate strongly against, such as the wall.