Upon reading the title of Ms. Ongaro's article in the previous issue of the Roundtable  ("Vilsack: A Disappointment," March 2009), I was certain we would be in agreement about the reactions to Obama's recent selection of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. Unfortunately, it seems that our agreement largely ended following the title of the article.

Ongaro characterizes Vilsack as a logical link between agriculture and energy in realizing Obama's vision for energy independence. However, corn-based ethanol has been cited by many as being one of the least efficient forms of biofuel. In fact, some scientists even believe that after accounting for the oil used for nitrogenous fertilizer, gas guzzling mega-tractors, and other factors, it actually takes more energy to produce corn-based ethanol than is created. It turns out that agriculture is one of America's biggest consumers of oil, particularly if food transport is included.

Ms. Ongaro also states that "Vilsack has received praise and support from various environmental and energy-conscious groups, such as the Corn Refiners Association." I am unsure as to whether the Corn Refiners Association is meant to be interpreted as environmentally conscious or energy conscious, but I'd like to propose an alternative possibility. Perhaps the Corn Refiners Association has a large vested interest in the continued delivery of massive subsidies for the production of corn, and in turn, corn-based ethanol. Its support for Vilsack could therefore be viewed as support for his continuing lobbying on behalf of ethanol production, since he was recently Governor of Iowa, coincidentally unofficially dubbed The Corn State. To be fair, Vilsack has backed off significantly from his previous stance on renewing subsidies for corn ethanol, which some believe have contributed to the recent acute food crisis; however, the entrenched nature of his political obligations makes distancing himself from the corn lobby difficult.

The "organic movement," as Ongaro labels it, has at least initially been unhappy with Vilsack's selection. This movement is better described as promoting sustainable agriculture or as anti-agribusiness, since the term "organic" has already been appropriated by major producers to create more profitable advertising and more enticing labeling at supermarkets. The word “organic” in this context is now far removed from the local, environmentally friendly, and humane "organic" that advocates of sustainable food production champion. Regardless, Ongaro fails to realize that the reasons this movement sees Vilsack as such a danger are the exact things she sees as Mr. Vilsack's strengths and areas of expertise. He represents a system that supports big agribusiness companies, which hurt local organic producers by undercutting them through economies of scale and government subsidies. The continued production of corn-based ethanol fits into this paradigm perfectly.

Despite the problems with Vilsack, all hope is not lost. The new administration still has opportunities to advocate for sustainability within the White House and throughout the country. When I spoke briefly with Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma, as he was whisked from his lecture at Cohen Auditorium to the dinner at the President's house, he expressed more optimism about the potential for better food policy from the Obama administration than in his initial interviews after Vilsack's selection. One sign of this potential is the organic garden covering an 1,100 square foot plot outside the White House that Michelle Obama has already begun digging up. Her potential as a first lady to promote sustainable and ethical agriculture is huge, since making personal attacks against the first lady is reserved for the lowest of pundits. Since it is clear that she cares about these issues, her influence could be key in reframing agricultural issues and putting America on a more sustainable path.

The 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution has never been one of America’s sexier laws. Few Americans are familiar with the ways in which their Senate seats are filled following a vacancy, yet millions of lives can be affected by a single Senator appointed by his state’s single governor. Now that the media has dissected the mishaps and embarrassments regarding Senate appointments in New York and Illinois, people are starting to pay attention. However, problems surrounding these appointments are not limited to the corruption of Rod Blagojevich or the ineptitude of David Paterson. These incidents are finally highlighting a serious and often overlooked flaw in our democracy which must be fixed.

When the 17th Amendment was ratified by the states in 1913, the power to choose United States Senators was transferred from the state legislatures to popular vote by the state’s citizens, who had already been directly electing House members for a century. Today, the problem lies not in the amendment itself, but in what it is missing. Filling a Senate seat in the case of a vacancy was largely ignored by Congress, and the power to appoint interim Senators was placed in the hands of State Governors.

Politics Instead of People

It goes without saying that this gives governors enormous power. Former Illinois Governor Blagojevich, who saw the opportunity as “f-ing golden,” went so far as to abuse this power and use it for political gain by attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Obama to the highest bidder. Blagojevich’s corruption was unusual, but made far too possible by the new power invested in him.

In the usual case, even without abuse of power, the selection of a replacement involves more political maneuvering than concern for citizens’ representation. After weeks of deliberation, New York Governor Paterson ultimately chose freshman congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacated seat. Gillibrand, a conservative Democrat who became immediately unpopular throughout her state, is believed to have been chosen to appease conservatives in upstate New York and assist Paterson’s re-election. In this way, appointed Senators become mere extensions of a governor’s political whims.

Those who do seek to fill a vacated seat have every incentive to lobby their governor and none to appeal to the people. During Caroline Kennedy’s short-lived candidacy, she made her interest in the position clear, but made little effort to articulate her vision for the future of New York. She simply felt entitled to the position. After Blagojevich’s controversial appointment of Roland Burris, Burris did not seize the media’s attention and articulate his views on national issues, but simply continued to claim ownership of the seat, and even stated that it was God’s will that he be seated. A directly elected senator must prove his worth to those he represents, and must express passion for America instead of interest in personal advancement.

So then, what benefit is there in appointing these senators? Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com points out that appointed senators rarely win re-election. Only 40 percent have been elected to serve a second term, and only 80 percent even choose to run for re-election, indicating their lack of passion for the job in the first place.

Amending the Anachronism

Senator Russ Feingold has been the first congressperson to propose a realistic solution to this issue, and his constitutional amendment, cosponsored by Senators John McCain and Mark Begich, will be debated by this new congress. Feingold is exactly right to describe senatorial appointments as “an anachronism,” and there have already been measures to replace it with fairer democracy. Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Feingold’s state of Wisconsin already allow for fast special elections, while Washington, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Vermont allow for an interim gubernatorial appointment to fill the position before the quick election. California and New Jersey allow governors to call for a special election, but do not require it.

This may be the perfect time to pass this amendment, and nothing is gained from delays. Currently there are fourteen Republican senators whose replacements would be appointed by Democratic governors, and 14 Democratic senators whose replacements would be appointed by Republican governors. There are no obvious ways in which either party stands to gain anything over the other.

The cost of reform is also inconsequential; special elections are expensive, but well worth the realization of good government. States have always funded special elections for House seats, and to deny the same for Senate seats would undermine our commitment to democracy. When he introduced the amendment, Feingold emphasized that “weighing the costs associated with the most basic tenet of our democracy-—the election of the government by the governed —sets us on a dangerous path.”

We pay a much higher price if we allow this wound in our constitution to exist unaddressed. Now is the time to reform our constitution and finally remove the chains on our unfinished democracy.

Throughout his campaign, President Obama maintained that one of his priorities as president would be address to the energy crisis. In the quest to achieve an energy-independent nation in the near future, the selection of the Secretary of Agriculture was a rather critical one. The search for alternative sources of energy has led to increased production of biofuels, or sources of energy derived from plant sources, such as ethanol. This closely links the fields of energy and agriculture, making the Department of Agriculture a key part of the Obama administration’s efforts to solve the energy crisis. In the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has found someone closely tied to the Grain Belt who will help him realize his goals. Both men have a passion for pursuing alternative fuels for environmental sustainability and self-reliance.

Although Vilsack has received praise and support from various environmental and energy-conscious groups, such as the Corn Refiners Association and the Environmental Defense Fund, his nomination has also been met with sharp criticism. The organic food movement that has swept across our nation is less than pleased with Vilsack, as he seems indifferent to their cause. Vilsack, however, cannot be fully blamed for his lack of attention to the organic issue, as this item seems to be missing from President Obama’s agenda as well.

Almost immediately following Obama’s election, a petition sprang out of the folds of the organic and environmental fronts, offering him an array of options for Secretary of Agriculture that the movement would support. Vilsack was not among their recommendations. Known as Food Democracy Now, this movement acquired electronic signatures by means of an online petition, collecting almost 85,000 in all. This number may seem small, but the movement extends much further than this online petition. Other websites and organizations have circulated similar petitions, including the Organic Consumers Association. America’s interest in the organic food movement is also demonstrated by the success of critically acclaimed journalist and author Michael Pollan. Pollan addresses the problems associated with big agribusiness and the advantages of small organic farming in his two books, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food. The sheer number of these books that have been purchased indicates widespread interest in organic culture.

Vilsack’s lack of attention to the organic industry is not the only thing that has created such an uproar. He has a somewhat lengthy list of issues that has led to numerous requests by organic consumers and farmers to halt Vilsack’s confirmation. Vilsack’s general mission to combat global warming certainly receives support, but his close ties to giant corn conglomerates and the politics of government subsidization raise a great deal of concern. Biofuels and ethanol production will greatly benefit the farmers in the state of his former governorship, and he perhaps does not have the best interests of the environment and fuel independence in mind. In fact, biofuels themselves often receive criticism because of the amount of energy required to produce them and their impact on food prices and starvation issues across the globe, making Vilsack’s support of their production even more of a concern. The rest of his expertise surrounding agriculture further conflicts with the goals of proponents of an organic lifestyle, as Vilsack supports genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops and the cloning of livestock.

Vilsack’s nomination, while representing the immediate needs of President Obama’s energy goals, does not promote the needs of a large segment of our population. Concern for a sustainable future and the health of our nation fuels the organic movement, and unfortunately, the time has come for politics to get involved. Even Michelle Obama has been rumored to have switched to a partially organic household in the interest of protecting her children’s health. The future of our health and our environment depends greatly on how we handle food and who represents our interests in the political arena. Currently, there is another petition circulating through the Internet at www.fooddemocracynow.org, with recommendations for USDA undersecretary positions. I urge you to consult this website to offer a voice in the USDA that will be able to counter Vilsack.

Over the last months we have heard a lot about desires for “God’s blessings and help.” Every speech in the United States seems to end with “God bless America.” But is this a good practice? Will such invocations really help us? Will they help God?

In laying out policy concepts, legislative agendas, foreign policy programs, or economic plans, it seems improvident to demand that some god approve it also. There are several good reasons to avoid getting a god tangled up in these matters, and there are thus some problems with the frequent use of “God bless America” and all that it implies.

First of all, “God” or gods are notoriously subject to human interpretation when we are told of “His” or their wishes. There are thousands of priests, pastors, ministers, televangelists, and quite ordinary people who claim to know “God’s Will.” Most of them probably intend to do the “right” thing by appealing to some notion about what is “god-given,” although there are a good many charlatans who prey on believers in exchange for one-way tickets to heaven. However, the frequent contradictions in their interpretations leave “God’s Will” as an unreliable place to find policy prescriptions or guidance.    

Second, it is important to notice that the Constitution of the United States never once mentions any god or “divine providence.” Our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that entirely omits any reliance upon a god. The Preamble states, “We the people...do ordain and establish,” declaring people, not a god, to be the founders of our nation and the masters of our futures. In fact, the Constitution mentions religion just twice, in Article VI and the First Amendment, and each time the word “no” is attached. It could not be clearer.

Furthermore, the god of the Bible is never once recorded as promoting American Constitutional values. The rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, freedom to vote in a democracy, or inalienable rights are not in any Scripture or Commandments. Thus, the Bible is hardly the place to look when determining America’s future path.

It is also problematic to imagine that there is a god who singularly selects the United States for special blessings over all the other peoples of the Earth. Calling on some Almighty to “bless America” and to give Americans preference over Europeans, Asians, Africans, and others is a ludicrous hubris. It is unworthy of us.

President Obama included a wonderful thought in his inauguration speech: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus- and non-believers.” This may be the first time in American history that “non-believers” were recognized, and hopefully signals that the many forms of non-belief, disbelief, and skepticism are becoming respected. Well-regarded polls indicate that about 14% of Americans are non-theists. This means that about 42 million persons, which is four times larger than the 9.5 million votes by which Obama defeated McCain, do not believe in the idea of god which is frequently invoked by our nation’s politicians.

Of course, a great many people have a god-belief, and an appeal to a common God might be seen as unifying for our nation. However, this is not the case in America today. There are more than 200 different denominations, sects, and cults just under the Christian awning, and uncountable more from other traditions and personal beliefs. The notion of a single God that can unify our country is long past.

Governmental and political “Godiness” is not good for human societies. It cheapens religious faith and cheapens thoughtful discourse. Mixing up patriotic and social thinking with gods and religion has never proved wise. We do not need to pledge “under God” or to swear “so help me God.” We do not need “God bless America.” We do not need “in God we trust.”  Depending on “divine blessings” is merely superstition, and ritual incantations to socially acceptable gods have no policy or pragmatic merit. This sort of magical thinking benefits neither persons nor government, and we might think the gods themselves, if any exist, must find these constant entreaties rather tiresome. Ye gods!  It really is up to us, “We the people,” with all our loves and joys, feelings and intellects, fears and insecurities, and social relationships, to try on our own to follow a Golden Rule that transcends religion. 

Since the days of our Founding Fathers, Americans have debated the responsibilities public officials have to the voters who elected them.  However, in today’s world of omnipresent polling, public opinion and the approval of American citizens have become critical to the success of any politician, especially the president. The 21st Century has seen the president become all the more dependent on public support to help push proposals through Congress and enact his or her agenda. As seen in the last few years of George W. Bush’s presidency, low public approval ratings can contribute to bad press, waning respect on Capitol Hill, and legislative deadlocks. Presidents need to follow the will of those who elected them, or otherwise risk an unsuccessful, unproductive presidency.

For this reason, the assertion that President Barack Obama has been given a mandate to pursue an exclusively Democratic agenda is problematic. While his historic victory, pegged by many as a landslide, may entitle President Obama to act according to the platform that won him election, his candidacy was built on bipartisanship. Therefore, acting without Republican consultation would leave President Obama acting contrary to the image he presented on the campaign trail, and without the full support of those who voted for him based on that image. Indeed, even if one were to argue that President Obama was elected based on his progressive policies, from the beginning of his campaign he stressed that even traditionally Democratic policies would be implemented with input from across the aisle. After his victory in Iowa on January 3, 2008, the then-senator from Illinois used his achievements in healthcare as a state senator to prove his commitment to bipartisanship, stating, “I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois—by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.”

Throughout the course of his presidential campaign, the former senator deepened his resolve to distinguish himself among his competition as a unifier, and resisted being pegged as a typical tax-and-spend liberal, despite acquiring the National Journal’s title of the most liberal senator of 2007. President Obama’s commitment to pursuing bipartisanship on Capitol Hill was best illustrated by the expectations he outlined for his party, his presidency, and all Americans in his November 4th victory speech, when he declared, “Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long... While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.” In other words, the results of the 2008 election were a mandate for the pursuit of the bipartisan politics President Obama emphasized throughout his campaign, rather than a rigid endorsement of the party he happens to represent.

Voter statistics from the 2008 election seem to support President Obama’s own assertions about his victory. Obama drew support from those that may not have agreed with all of his party’s liberal platform, but were convinced by his resolution to reach across the aisle. For example, according to CNN’s exit poll, 52 percent of all independent voters voted for Obama, as well as 60 percent of all voters identifying as moderates and 20 percent of all voters identifying as conservative. Voter registration statistics from swing states such as Pennsylvania also suggest that although 89 percent of registered Democrats voted for Obama, many may have been less than fully committed to the party’s beliefs. In March of 2008, almost 60,000 Pennsylvanian voters switched their registration from Republican to Democrat. While it’s possible that these former Republicans suddenly became enamored by Democratic policies, it’s more probable that they crossed party lines because of the excitement of the Democratic primary and Obama’s message of bipartisan change.

The opinions of Republican Party leaders prior to the 2008 election help explain why many non-Democrats were swayed by Obama’s call for political unity. Chuck Hagel, former Senate Republican from Nebraska, said in a March 2008 interview that he believed Obama was the candidate most likely to bring the United States together. Although Hagel never endorsed Obama, his waning support for the Bush Administration and disenchantment with Republican politics left few speculating why a McCain endorsement failed to materialize. Fed up with their party but not Republican principles, many right-leaning voters and politicians viewed electing a bipartisan Obama as the best way to ensure that Republican ideals were respected and Bush-style politics of divisiveness discontinued.

But even if one were to argue that President Obama’s willingness to work with Republicans played no role in his election, it still stands that almost half of all Americans didn’t even vote for him. While the final electoral collage tally, 365 to 173 votes, made the election look like a huge landslide, John McCain still won 46 percent of the popular vote. While this portion of the population disagreed with Barack Obama enough to vote against him, as president, he represents all Americans. For this reason, Obama is obligated to work with Republicans in an effort to better represent the 58 million Americans who voted Republican.

However, almost immediately after being elected, Obama appeared to start sliding backwards from his lofty promises of reaching across the aisle and changing how Washington works. On November 6, a mere two days after being elected, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, a hard-charging, intensely partisan career politician whose nickname of “Rahmbo” needs no explanation. The appointment of Emanuel, who may be best known for mailing a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, did not offer much promise for bipartisan cooperation from the Obama White House. Rather, it signaled that Obama intended to use Emanuel’s strong personality to force issues through Congress. Yet, despite this initial appointment, there were positive signs that Obama intended to make good on his promises. Obama’s decision to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was prudent both politically and practically; it mollified the right wing by putting a Republican in a major Cabinet position, while simultaneously ensuring some continuation in the military chain of command during a time of war. Similarly, the appointment of Marine Corps General James L. Jones was an extremely wise choice. The career military officer had been approached by Condoleeza Rice for the deputy Secretary of State position, twice turning it down, and from November 2007 until the end of the Bush administration, Jones served as a special envoy to the Middle East for security concerns. It was another move that could be whole heartedly endorsed by both sides of the aisle, and with Obama frequently hinting that another Cabinet post would be filled by a Republican, for a period of time it seemed that Obama was serious about his bipartisan aspirations. And then, with his inauguration, came the debate over the stimulus.

From day one, Obama made it clear that creating an economic stimulus package to revive the flailing American economy was his first priority. Even before taking office, Obama was pressuring lawmakers to act quickly, and for a period of time was pushing for a bill to be ready for him to sign the day he was inaugurated. While news of Obama’s plans faced the normal griping from hard-line economic conservatives opposed to any and all government intervention, initially the prospect of a stimulus bill faced wide-spread support from both parties. Aware that the American economy was in dire straits and facing a growing sense among constituents that something needed to be done to stem the tide, senators and congressmen from across the political spectrum were prepared to hammer out a deal. It appeared to be a shining moment for Obama to flash his bipartisan credentials, work with both party leaders, and come out with a bill that nearly everyone could support. Instead, America got the same party-line wrangling that has been plaguing American politics for decades. And in the mess that followed, it became clear that Obama should work with Republicans not only for political and popularity reasons, but for practical ones as well.

Instead of pursuing a bipartisan coalition to author the bill, Obama turned to his Democratic colleagues to singlehandedly craft the stimulus package.  The initial version was introduced as legislation in the Senate on January 6, 2009, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and co-sponsored by 16 other Democratic senators and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)—clearly not a group that encompasses both sides of the debate. And yet, despite the obvious contradictions between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his first major action upon being elected, it was not the decision to have the Democrats write the bill that was most incongruous with Obama’s platform of post-partisan politics. Rather, what was troubling was the response from Obama and the Democrats when the Republican Party chose to raise its objections to the bill. On January 23, President Obama met with a group of Republican congressional leaders to hear their concerns about the recently proposed bill, a move ostensibly designed to reach out and work through their differences.  However, according to an article on Politico.com, numerous sources reported that Obama flatly told the Republicans, “I won.”  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Obama’s words when dealing with Republican complains about the House version of the bill, stating at a news conference, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.”

Obama’s attempts to ram the stimulus package through Congress without the consent of Republicans largely went up in flames. While Obama had wanted to sign the bill the day he took office, it took almost a month of wrangling before a deal could be struck to pass it in the Senate. Only the strong bipartisan efforts of moderate Republicans Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) managed to salvage the package, and the compromise they reached showed what could have been accomplished if Obama had engaged the Republicans from the beginning. Bipartisanship fared even worse in the House—all Republican attempts to introduce amendments to the bill were voted down, and as a result not a single Republican voted to pass it. While this may have shown that in the House Obama doesn’t need Republican support to pursue his agenda, it also leaves him politically vulnerable; if the stimulus package does not work, the Republican Party is set to say, “I told you so.” 

In the wake of the fight over the stimulus package, commentators such as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen have declared Obama’s dreams of changing Washington to be dead, and called for Obama to use the Democrat majority in Congress to pursue his goals without Republican support.  The Republicans have been labeled obstructionists and accused of putting partisan politics before the people, and Obama is facing calls to fight fire with fire.  This is the wrong lesson to learn.  Rather, the example of Specter, Snowe, and Collins should be seen as what can be accomplished when parties sit down in good faith to work out an agreement.  This is not only what is politically and practically expedient for President Obama—it is what the American people demanded in November.

Although the façade of American hegemony across the world may be crumbling, the President of the United States remains the most powerful man in the world. The Obama administration has only just now entered into the game, so to speak, but must already face challenges that could easily render the next four (or eight) years moot. In seeking to pass an economic stimulus package, President Obama’s promise to change the way Washington does business has been severely tested, as the White House’s best efforts to reach across the aisle were turned away, with all 178 Republican members of the House of Representatives voting against the stimulus package. This sort of repudiation may well represent Washington politics for the next several years, for if the Republican party is unwilling to take the hand that has been extended to them, then President Obama will, and rightfully so, turn to the overwhelming mandate that was handed to him in this past fall’s election.

November 4, 2008 was a historic night, regardless of one’s political beliefs, but it was an especially sweet night for Democrats everywhere, as a surge of Democratic candidates, not just Obama, claimed victory. The strong Democratic showings in the House and Senate elections certainly indicated a rising tide of support for the Democratic party across America.  Yet any discussion of a Presidential mandate must first consider the race for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,  a race that Barack Obama won soundly. The margin of 53 percent to 46 percent in favor of Barack Obama represented a victory much larger than the two previous elections.

Mere size, however, does not create a mandate, but the composition of the coalition that was forged does paint a bright picture for President Obama. In a tour de force for get-out-the vote efforts, President Obama won a majority of both male and female votes nationally, as well as unheard-of margins of victory among minorities, especially among African-American voters, whom Obama carried by a margin of 95 percent to 4 percent. Other minority groups that comprise a notable share of the electorate, such as Latinos and Asians, were carried by well over 60 percent. Although these numbers are encouraging, a coalition formed of women and minority voters has long been a mainstay for Democratic politics.

What made the Obama campaign so special, however, was the spread of voters that he was able to attract across all levels of the income spread. Obama won the bloc of voters who made less than $50,000 a year by a significant margin, but also captured victories in the $75-100,000 and $200,000+ brackets. When taken in total, the traditional Democratic coalition was augmented by members from all classes in society, creating a margin that helped win the White House race.

Obama also managed to take his message of change to the entire nation, in a reversal of much of the conventional wisdom about presidential campaigning. The coalition the Obama campaign formed displayed tremendous geographical diversity, capturing states across the Union: North Carolina and Virginia in the South, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa in the Midwest, and Colorado and New Mexico out in the Southwest, are all states which Obama carried that had not seen a Democratic majority in years.

Alongside this impressive geographic diversity came a general tide of support for Democratic candidates, in both congressional and gubernatorial positions. Minnesota aside, where the outcome is still in dispute, the Democrats won 19 Senatorial races, including seven seats that changed party hands, and in the House, a strong majority of 257-178 Democratic congressmen was installed in power. In states like Missouri and North Carolina, Democrats came to power in the governor’s mansion as well.

To capture the White House is no small feat, to be sure, but one cannot possibly deny the surge of Democratic victories at all levels of government, from Capitol Hill to City Hall. When so many Democratic candidates come to the fore, led by a victory in the White House, it seems at best farcical to deny that a national mandate was given to the Democratic Party, and by little extension, to President Barack Obama.

Just as significant was the platform that President Obama campaigned on in the general election. Beyond a doubt, the positions espoused by Obama during the campaign presented a marked contrast to the policies of the administration of George W. Bush. Obama’s proposals for vast increases in health care coverage, alongside his calls for open dialogue with Iran and Syria, are decidedly liberal positions, making his capture of such a vast share of the electorate all the more impressive. Positions that are clearly to one side of the political spectrum do not always win a significant majority of the electorate, making President Obama’s victory a true mandate.

Since Inauguration Day, most all of the policy focus of the White House has been on the economic stimulus package, a plan that has been largely contested by the Republican delegation in Congress. The saga of the stimulus package has just recently ended, but the lessons that can be drawn from the concluding acts of the fight to pass the stimulus are rather telling. At the outset, President Obama has fulfilled another of his campaign promises—to change the way Washington works—and met with members of the Republican Party in what many have described as a sincere effort to work in a truly bipartisan manner to help right America’s economy. Despite this rare gesture, the hand that was extended was soundly slapped away, as not a single House Republican voted in favor of the stimulus package.

Given the stark lines that were publicly drawn around the stimulus, with President Obama and Congressional Democrats on one side and the Republican Party strongly opposed, the mandate bestowed upon Obama and the Democrats was strongly put to the test. Although the exam was difficult, those in blue seem to have come out ahead. A poll recently conducted by the New York Times shows that some 79 percent of Americans believe that the Republican Party needs to work in a bipartisan manner, while the same poll shows that three-quarters of Americans believe that President Obama is making good on his campaign promise to work in a bipartisan fashion. Americans appear to see the GOP as an obstacle to economic improvement, hindering the work of the Obama administration.

Another poll, conducted by CNN, found that six in ten Americans support the stimulus package, while the approval rating for President Obama is an elevated 67 percent. After an extraordinarily partisan fight, with the two parties clearly diametrically opposed, the public remains in resounding support of the Obama administration on an issue that for many was the most important in the fall campaign. Americans support Barack Obama, and he clearly has a mandate from the American people. The coalition formed in the fall swept a tide of Democrats into office, offering a sound public endorsement of Barack Obama, an endorsement that was validated by the passage and approval of Obama’s economic policies and work in his first days in office. It is Americans, then, not only Democrats, who have proclaimed; “Yes, we can.”

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire surprised much of the nation on February 12, when he withdrew his name from nomination to be President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. His action, though sudden, actually represents a natural and necessary evolution of thought and is emblematic of the transformation taking place in the Republican Party as a whole. Offered the chance to be a conservative instrument of liberal policy, Gregg chose instead to cleave to principle, knowing full well that the decision would cost him influence and damage his reputation.

Citing “irreconcilable differences,” Gregg insisted that while he respected the President and wished him well, he could not accept the opportunity to serve in his cabinet. While speculation abounds as to the true cause of Gregg’s decision, it seems that he felt that his presence in the cabinet would be more as a token Republican than a true policymaker.

In the context of President Obama’s loud and repeated calls for a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, Gregg’s choice was particularly politically costly—and courageous.  Though it seems clear that Gregg truly was ready to put partisanship aside to serve the good of the country, the Obama administration’s actions served to demonstrate that he would also have to sacrifice his principles in order to serve in the Cabinet. The administration’s attempt to place the Census (a responsibilty of the Departmet of Commerce) under the direct control of the White House and its advocacy of a pork-laden, irresponsible “stimulus package” would have forced Gregg to be the instrument of policies that he opposes on principle. So, Gregg turned down the offer to serve, knowing that his reputation among voters would suffer for refusing to join in Obama’s “bipartisanship.”

The Republican Party is now coming to the realization that it faces the same choice that Gregg did. Though the President makes the appearance of bipartisanship a high priority, his actual policies reveal a staunch, uncompromising liberal agenda. Thus, while he invited many top Congressional Republicans to his Super Bowl party and dined at George Will’s house, Obama and his legislative allies virtually shut Republicans out of the crafting of the recently passed stimulus package. This forces members of the GOP to choose either to “go along to get along” or to appear as bitter, petty obstructionists.

In the vote over the stimulus, for which not a single House Republican voted in favor, the party decided to take a stand much in the way that Gregg did. It argued that its positions are not mere convenient political posturing but are based on a firm commitment to limited government. Many expressed an honest willingness to work with Democrats, but they would not give their unconditional approval to liberal policies in order to provide those policies the appearance of bipartisan compromise. Gregg, too, after finding out that he would be merely a conservative rubber stamp on Obama’s policies, refused to play a part in the charade. The Obama administration’s handling of the stimulus and the Census foreshadowed its likely strategy for future debates over union card-check, illegal immigration, and taxes. Faced with four years of giving conservative political cover to radically liberal policies, Judd Gregg turned Obama down.

Thus, after eight years of wandering in an ideological wilderness, the Republican Party is finding itself again. Both Judd Gregg’s rejection of the Department of Commerce’s offer and the Republican Congressional delegation’s overwhelming rejection of the “stimulus” hint at a party that has begun to remember what “small government conservatism” really means. That’s a good sign for the future of the party—and the country.

In the face of such a dramatic economic downturn, many politicians and commentators have argued that both American politicians and consumers should do more to support domestic businesses. The claim that “buying American” will save American jobs and prop up the weak manufacturing industry is both exaggerated and unfounded, and will only lead to the loss of future innovation and the creation of unnecessary tensions with trade partners.

By guaranteeing business to comparatively inefficient domestic producers, America is simply removing the incentive for domestic manufacturers to generate the innovation necessary to remain competitive with foreign rivals once we eventually remove this protectionist measure. Although it is tempting, and perhaps politically expedient, to construct a temporary shield around America’s economy, protectionist measures are a short-term “solution.” As inconceivable as it may seem now, the American economy and the world economy will eventually spring back. America will find it necessary to repeal its existing protectionist measures, however unjustified they were in the first place. Without foreign competition, American manufacturers will have had little incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and will be at a disadvantage in the long run.

To be certain, protectionism isn’t always bad. It can be beneficial for burgeoning industries in developing countries that would otherwise be crushed by international competition. The United States, however, occupies a vastly different place in the world than these hypothetical developing nations.

If we impose “buy America” measures on imports, other countries, most notably China, will refuse to buy our exports, launch a retaliatory battle, and cause our export market to collapse. America experienced this during the Great Depression when the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, which imposed import tariffs on thousands of goods, was passed in 1930. The Tariff launched a trade war, worsening the Depression and triggering a weakening of American manufacturing. A potential buy-American provision is clearly not on the same scale as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, but it still has the potential to make a political and economic impact. As Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics note, “Even a small echo of that experience would be a disaster.” Protectionism and tariffs will benefit American producers only in the short run, and America cannot afford to have such an irresponsible strategy.

Since a buy-American proposal will only hurt the American economy in the future, there is the implication that it must at least benefit the American economy at present. Regrettably, this is not the case. According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institution for International Economics, a buy-American proposal would create fewer than 9,000 American jobs—a virtually insignificant number in the face of the nearly 600,000 jobs lost in the first month of 2009 alone. Furthermore, job loss from plummeting demand for American exports due to a protectionism-imposed trade war could quickly surpass 9,000.

Finally, it is important to remember that economic decisions have political implications. Quite simply, America cannot afford to be viewed as a selfish hypocrite. Though it is oft stated, the refrain that globalization is a very real phenomenon rings truer than ever, especially in light of this worldwide financial crisis. America faces threats that it cannot possibly confront alone, and it cannot afford to antagonize allies and create unnecessary ill-will. It is unwise to sacrifice innovation and create needless animosity for the unfounded prospect of a trivial level of short-term growth.