The presidential candidates have focused much of their attention in the 2012 election on domestic and economic policy. However, the killing of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last week, and the ensuing demonstrations across the Middle East has offered voters a chance to observe how the candidates would handle real life events. Does foreign policy matter in presidential elections? I argue it does, and more so than candidates and pundits traditionally give it credit.

While the media and pundits have primarily focused their commentary this week on Mitt Romney’s 47% comment delivered during a closed-door donor dinner (watch the full remarks of part I here and part II here), many have glossed over the remarks he made regarding foreign policy. Romney’s remarks that the American people “aren’t concentrated at all” on issues such as relations with China, Russia, Iran and Iraq are of concern here. While many polls show that the economy is the primary issue of importance to the electorate in this election, foreign affairs do in fact shape voter evaluations of the presidential candidates and ultimately influence how they will cast their ballot on the election day. In addition, in such an extremely polarized political environment, it’s also clear that elite partisans messages mediate voters’ foreign policy evaluations of the candidates

As we celebrate this week the 225^th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, it is a fitting time to think seriously about the critical, but uneasy relationship of executive power and the rule of law that has existed since the founding.

America’s most revered statesmen – Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Roosevelt – all reveal that democratic leadership involves a vital connection between leaders and led. It requires first of all that the leader remain answerable to his followers. Even as the president takes bold initiatives and ignores public opinion in the short-run, he must enable his followers to hold him accountable in ways that are practicable and timely. Furthermore, extraordinary democratic statesmanship is not displayed in isolation. Party building and partisan leadership has been central to this task of civic education. Washington apart, America’s most celebrated statesmen were all central to either the creation or reconstruction of political parties. Episodically, periods of partisan realignment have given presidents the political strength to embark on ambitious projects of national reform.

These episodes, though they may appear to threaten our Constitution, have a revolutionary quality to them. These great political transformations have engaged the American people in popular contests over the meaning of their rights and how to protect them. Presidential statesmanship has provided a critical ingredient to these harsh partisan contests. They have required presidents to think constitutionally: to interpret the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the relationship between these two sacred political texts for their own time. In this sense, our most important presidents have truly been constitutional refounders, justifying Jefferson’s exalted, elusive hope that the Constitution would “belong to the living.”

Lets briefly move away from electoral predictions and instead consider the following claim: should he be elected in November, Mitt Romney will be remembered as a failed president. In a January 2012 post to the blog Balkinization, Indiana University Professor of Law Gerard Magliocca briefly speculates on why this will be the case by invoking Stephen Skowronek’s research. Magliocca suggests that Candidate Romney has the potential to become a “disjunctive” President Romney who leaves office in political disgrace.  Through a brief examination of the Romney candidacy I will build on Magliocca’s claim and in so doing demonstrate that a Romney victory portends the coming politics of disjunction.

Mitt Romney faces a leadership dilemma – being affiliated with a set of governing commitments no longer seen as credible by the public while simultaneously being unable to repudiate them.  He must appease the base of the Republican Party by situating himself as an inheritor of “Reagan Conservatism” even as Reagan Conservatism is increasingly discredited.  In short, when we look at Mitt Romney, we should see Jimmy Carter.

Recent polling provides support for this claim.  A majority of Americans now support increasing taxes on the rich and most Americans also believe that material inequality, not government regulation bears responsibility for contemporary economic problems.  The public supports additional government regulation of Wall Street, and cuts to the defense budget, while it opposes Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s proposed budget.  A majority also blames President George W. Bush – the most recent incarnation of Reagan – for our current economic problems. 

On each point, polls show the public rejects Reagan Conservatism and on each point Candidate Romney is on the wrong side of the public. Yet he cannot repudiate these views because they represent central principles of Reagan Conservatism and they retain the support of Romney’s closest political allies.

Yesterday, CSPAN Chairman Brian Lamb spoke at the Miller Center’s Forum.  Since its founding in 1978, CSPAN has made an important contribution to the revolution in communications, which in turn has enormously impacted the way in which people receive information and relate to government. Two things in particular set CSPAN apart from other media outlets. First, unlike public television or radio, it is truly separated from government. Second, unlike cable news shows, CSPAN airs policy and political events (such as the recent conventions), as well as government proceedings without filtered commentary. While CSPAN has been a pioneer in the communications revolution, Lamb noted that Twitter and Facebook are the sources of news for the next generation and the freedom they offer is even more extraordinary. The main take-away from Lamb’s talk was his belief in the absolute need to maintain a free market of ideas in the media, whether as individuals we agree with those ideas or not.

Once again the polarized political environment is trumping serious real-world issues. On Tuesday, a truly genuine human being, Ambassador Chris Stevens, died during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya perpetrated by a group with extremist ties. The group took advantage of people demonstrating against a film offensive to Muslims to carry out the attack. New reports suggest that the attacks in both Libya and Cairo were timed for the commemoration of the September 11, 2001 attacks and in retaliation for U.S. drone strikes and attacks on Al Qaeda earlier this year.

When I worked in Washington D.C., I had the opportunity to meet with Chris on a few occasions to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran and Libya. At our first meeting in Spring 2007 when he was working on an exchange from the State Department in a Senate office, Chris learned that I had traveled Libya as part of civil society exchange soon after U.S. sanctions against the country were lifted in 2003, and again in 2005. He asked to meet with me again to learn all he could about my experiences in the country before he was set to take up a diplomatic post there that year. He was truly interested in learning about the Libyan culture and was intent on improving American-Libyan relations, as well as Arab-American relations more broadly. As one of my former DC colleagues wrote today, Chris was precisely the right person to serve as U.S. Ambassador.  He was an excellent representative of the United States, a gifted foreign service officer, and he will be missed.

The tragic killing of Ambassador Stevens and three of his staff sheds some light on the situation on the ground and the gaps in security. Before September 11, 2012, many journalists and pundits tried to paint a rosy situation in Libya. But the reality on ground for the people living there is far different. One of my contacts in Libya whom I met on my first trip to the country, Ibrahim, emailed me this message:

The situation is not OK at all. Peoples’ hopes from the 17 February change (the Libyan revolution) have not been met. There is a real serious threat of civil war that is so obvious and it is only a matter of time if things keep on going this way. It’s so sad, no one is really in control of any thing. The western world has forgotten about human rights in Libya at this time and people are really questioning the real intentions of the USA and Europe.

It will take more than a speech to improve Arab-American relations and to improve the situation on the ground for the beleaguered peoples in the Middle East. However, instead of using the tragedy of September 11, 2012 as means for addressing how the United States will work with allies and partners to do so, the parties have instead engaged in partisan bickering. The American people and the Libyan people deserve better from politicians than the politicization of the tragic attacks.

Last week a bit of controversy erupted on the Democratic Convention floor when the delegates were asked to vote on amending the platform to include God and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Politico reported that President Obama himself ordered his staff to make the change after Republicans seized on both to attack the President and the party.

Democratic and Republican presidents alike have considered recognition of Jerusalem part of the final status negotiations. From Harry S. Truman through the presidency of George H.W. Bush, every president opposed Israel’s expansion in Jerusalem and asserted that the city should remain undivided.

However, for Democrats, official American policy upheld by presidents has differed from the party positions since 1972, when the party platform called for recognizing the “established status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel” and called for relocating the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. With the exception of the 1988 Democratic Party platform in which Jerusalem was not mentioned even once, the Democratic Party was the first to call for recognition of Jerusalem and has maintained this position since. Presidential policy positions on Jerusalem shifted with the presidency of Bill Clinton. The Clinton administration essentially gave Israel a de facto green light for settlements in East Jerusalem, and the Clinton Parameters, established in 2000, broke from the long-standing position that Jerusalem remain an open city. The 2012 Democratic Party position emphasizes that Jerusalem is part of final status negotiations for the first time since the party’s began taking a position on the issue 40 years ago. This language is not surprising given that President Obama himself ordered the change to the party platform.

1. No one can out-perform Bill Clinton, not the NFL or even a sitting president with incomparable rhetorical skills. Clinton soaked up the spotlight and enjoyed every moment of it. His speech reminded me of the 2000 SNL skit in which Clinton, following a presidential debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush, assures Americans he is doing everything he can to find a way to be president again. Obama's appearance on stage at the conclusion of Clinton’s speech was almost necessary to remind the public that he's the one running for president.

2. If your expectations for a speaker are high, you may be disappointed by actual performance. In the case of President Obama, for example, many expected to hear specifics about his second term policy agenda. Instead, we basically heard an amalgamation of speeches from the previous nights, featuring a laundry list of party positions and Democratic themes. As Larry Sabato aptly put it, it was nothing more than a glorified stump speech.

3. If your expectations for a speaker are low, you may be pleasantly surprised. John Kerry was on fire last night. I might have even paid to see his performance as a stand-up comedian, with his delivery of lines such as, “Ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off now than he was four years ago.” Poking fun at Romney’s shifting positions on Iraq and Libya, Kerry said, “Talk about being for it before you were against it.”  Another highlight: “For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is what you call it when you trip all over yourself overseas. It wasn't a goodwill mission – it was a blooper reel.” He could have topped his speech off with a line like, “For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is visit to the ATM” or by asking “Will you elect a flip-flopper from Massachusetts?”

4. As a California delegate complained to me, the Convention was too focused on the president, his policy positions and policy accomplishments. Welcome to the presidency-centered programmatic party system that has been developing since FDR, with roots in TR’s presidency. As the California delegate pointed out though, Congressional races matter if the president wants to implement his second-term policy agenda.

5. For probably the first time in nearly half a century, the Democratic Party had an edge on national security and foreign affairs. And believe me, they milked it for all it was worth. However, it really was one important difference between the Republican and Democratic conventions. The Democrats emphasized Veterans and of course touted Bin Laden’s death, as well as action in Libya. Furthermore, the Democrats linked foreign policy with domestic policy, arguing that war and peace, and rich and poor, drive social issues domestically. Meanwhile, we barely heard any mention of foreign policy at the Republican convention, Condi Rice aside. Nor have the Republicans explained why they are calling for 100,000 new troops in their party platform or what they plan to do with them.

In this post, I offer some highlights from the second day of the convention floor. Stay tuned for a round-up of unconventional highlights.

Day two of the convention was filled with partisan appeals and once again focused on the policy accomplishments and positions of the Obama administration. The main thrust of the speeches was to convey the election as a choice over the future of the middle class, the American Dream and "shared opportunity, shared responsibility, all-in-it-together society." Sandra Fluke and Libby Bruce, among others, discussed what a Romney presidency would mean for women’s rights.  Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) drove home the differences in economic policies of the two presidential candidates, noting that the election is a choice that “will determine whether America is a place where people climb the ladder of opportunity and pull it up behind them or whether America is a place where people who reach the top help the next person up.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (California) also called this election a choice not only of candidates, but also of issue positions:

Many names are on the ballot. So, too, is the character of our country…Medicare is on the ballot…Social Security is on the ballot…The hard-won rights of women are on the ballot…Our democracy is on the ballot. Democrats believe we must curb the influence of special interests on our political institutions…The American dream is on the ballot. Ladders of opportunity for our middle class are on the ballot.

Bill Clinton was by far the star of the evening, if not the convention thus far, engaging in partisan warfare. I predict that with his current favorability rating (coming in around 69%), Clinton’s attack dog performance will contribute to any convention bump President Obama receives.

When Jimmy Carter delivered his video message to the Democratic National Convention yesterday, he did so as the second-longest serving ex-president of all time. By the end of this week, he will be the longest-serving, exceeding Herbert Hoover’s 31 years and 232 days out of office – and building a compelling record of humanitarian endeavor along the way.
But it is the former president appearing at the convention tonight – Bill Clinton – whose expanding ex-presidency threatens to steal the show. And not just from Carter, but from the incumbent president whose campaign he is aiming to bolster.

The first evening of the Democratic Convention was filled with speeches driving home the first term policy accomplishments of President Barack Obama and values that undergird those policies. We heard a lot about the differences between the candidates on range of policies including Medicare, foreign policy, immigration, and tax policy. Nearly all of the speakers drove home the importance of the President’s healthcare bill, but this was especially the case for a family whose daughter had a congenital heart condition and, thanks to Obamacare, would now receive the coverage they needed. The main theme running through the various speeches was the Democratic Party’s interpretation of the American Dream – which requires an active role for government, government investment and individual contributions to become a reality.

CHARLOTTE, NC. --- Those who claim that the party conventions have become nothing more than pre-packaged speeches are missing an entire element of what modern conventions are about. Inside the convention halls, yes the parties put forward a line-up of loyal speakers to promote their candidate, party and platform. But outside the convention halls, interest groups (as well as lobbyists and businesses) are engaging in a whole range of activities that aren’t necessarily observed by the mainstream media or by political scientists. Yet, these activities make an important contribution to the role of conventions in modern elections.

At least in Charlotte, it’s not solely about the formal speeches or promoting the Democratic Party. The convention is also an event around which individuals and interest groups have the opportunity to organize, strategize and express public opinion. Such activities outside the formal convention are just as important to observe and monitor because they raise issues that you may not hear about in the official party agenda and they provide an opportunity for all individuals, not just the party loyal, to engage in political expression.

This week, I’ll be blogging from Charlotte, North Carolina about the Democratic National Convention, as well as many of the side events and shadow conventions that receive less coverage from the mainstream media. Last week, Robert Saldin, who was blogging for RTT from Tampa, Florida for the Republican Convention, offered his top four Greatest Hits in the Modern History of Republican Conventions. In this post, I offer what I think are some of the Greatest Hits from Democratic Conventions since the Progressive Era. Be sure to stay tuned this week for my “Missives from a Shadow Delegate.”

1. William Jennings Bryan captured the party’s nomination in 1896 with a speech in which he famously declared, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" In the “Cross of Gold” speech, Bryan argued that the Democratic Party’s focus on bi-metallism in its platform was justified because a gold standard alone could not solve the country’s problems at the time, including debt, small business failure, and monopolies. According to Bryan, if silver was restored, “all other necessary reforms will be possible.” He compared the situation to fights over the national bank, arguing: “What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth.” In the speech, Bryan also connected the Democratic Party’s tradition since Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson against moneyed interests in favor of the little guy. Bryan favored a regulatory role for government in issuing money and called for banks to “go out of the governing business.”
2. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first presidential candidate to deliver an acceptance speech at a party convention. When he learned he had secured the nomination, FDR flew from Albany to Chicago to deliver the speech at the convention. He said, "I know that this is breaking precedent to appear before you on this floor, but we're in a middle of a Great Depression, and I intend to break a lot of precedents this year and also as President." In his acceptance speech, FDR also told the delegates, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.” The catch phrase became the basis for the sweeping political and economic changes FDR would enact as president. As I’ve noted previously on RTT, I also think FDR’s acceptance speech in 1936 was important for defining a new understanding of government.
3. In 1976, Barbara Jordan became the first black and the first woman to deliver the Democratic Party’s keynote address. Instead of focusing on the nation’s problems, Jordan advocated coming together as a “national community.” “It's tough, difficult, not easy,” Jordan told the delegates, “But a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny; if each of us remembers, when self-interest and bitterness seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny.” Jordan was also the first female black senator elected to the Texas State Senate and she served as a U.S. Congresswoman from 1973-1978. Read the Miller Center’s Oral History with Jordan here.
4. Barack Obama’s 2004 keynote address to the Democratic Convention in Boston made him a rising star in the party. In 2008, he became the first African American presidential candidate in the history of the two major political parties and accepted the nomination on the 45^th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. In the acceptance speech, Obama said both individual responsibility and mutual responsibility are “the essence of America’s promise,” and he called for a progressive agenda of change, while appealing to voters of all stripes.

Which convention speech or speeches would you would to the list of “greatest hits”?

When it comes to messaging, this Republican National Convention has offered a jarring departure from the traditional GOP script.  Typically, Republicans in convention have played to the longstanding partisan advantage they’ve enjoyed with the public on foreign affairs.  But that theme has been virtually absent here in Tampa.  In fact, for at least some of us in the audience, one welcome feature of Condoleezza Rice’s widely heralded speech last night was its partial departure from what has become a rather repetitive message over the last two days.  The former Secretary of State not only captivated a restless and distracted crowd, but actually offered remarks on something other than the economy.  Yet as refreshing as it was to hear a new message emanating from the podium, it’s actually the party’s otherwise monotonous focus on the economy and the budget that tells us much more about Mitt Romney’s Republican Party and that signals a major shift in GOP messaging.

In the modern “infomercial” era of national conventions, the parties’ most important task is to explain to millions of television viewers why they should vote Democrat or Republican.  This objective produces what social scientists might call a “data rich” event in which dozens of party elites read carefully scripted messages to convey the party’s message to the public and—just as importantly—to educate the assembled delegates about what, exactly, that message is.

For scholars of parties and the party system, these messages are a potential treasure trove.  They’re easily accessible and comprise an unrivaled guide to the parties’ public philosophies.  Yet few scholars write about or pay much attention to—let alone show up at—party conventions.  University of Wisconsin political scientists Byron Shafer, who has been attending both major party conventions since 1980, is a notable exception.

Shafer’s work emphasizes:

“Every convention, no matter how well or badly managed, no matter how modestly or even thinly covered, does succeed in putting some messages—substantive arguments plus operational impressions—in front of a general public that, while viewership and ratings have declined, still registers in the multi-millions.” 

Democrats and Republicans have traditionally offered divergent messages during their respective conventions.  While Democrats have tended to focus on social welfare issues, Republicans have generally showcased foreign affairs. But—Rice aside—that’s not we’ve seen here in Tampa.  Foreign affairs haven’t just played second fiddle to domestic issues, they’ve been almost entirely missing from the Republican message.  An economically-oriented message would always be expected from budget hawks like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie.  But this year’s GOP message clearly goes deeper than that.  The Republicans gathered here in Tampa have chosen to ignore foreign affairs and have gone all-in on the economy and their “grown-up” approach to the budget.  The outcome of the election in November will likely tell us a lot about whether this year’s shift in GOP messaging represents an enduring change in the party’s presentation of itself to the American public or is merely a temporary diversion.

The old adage that “if you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 40, you have no brain” is much more than a clever quip at Republican conventions.  The convert story has a long history at these GOP gatherings and has come to hold a semi-official place on the program.  Last night Artur Davis was the latest Democrat-turned-Republican to fill this slot.  And while the prime-time TV audience may have missed it, inside the hall, Davis and his conversion story was the sleeper hit of the night that captivated the GOP faithful.

Democratic conventions often have their own breakout performances, too.  In 2004, for instance, Barack Obama’s speech made him an instant star.  In 2008, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer offered up a classic red meat barnburner that upstaged the evening’s headliners.

But for Republicans, it’s often the story of the disillusioned ex-Democrat that steals the show.  This time-honored role at GOP conventions has no corollary at the Democratic counterpart (though Charlie Christ will try his hand at it next week in Charlotte).

Part of the explanation for Republicans’ adoration for the convert may lie in the relative lack of youthful energy and idealism that often fuels Democratic conventions and electoral campaigns.  Lacking that rock star quality— which Davis summarized last night as “plywood Greek columns and artificial smoke…Hollywood stars and glamour,”—Republicans like to counter with, as Chris Christie put it during his show-closing Keynote Address, “tell[ing] us the hard truths we need to hear.”  Who better to hammer home this sober message for Republican true believers than a convert who used to revel in the Democrats’ decadent culture of Valhalla excess?

Since 1964, Gallup polling has shown that, on average, a presidential candidate will earn a five percentage point “bump” in polls following their party’s convention. Of course, bumps for individual candidates vary and the sustainability of a post-convention bump depends upon circumstances and events that follow (e.g. financial crisis, poor debate performance, ect.). Furthermore, a convention bump doesn’t necessarily mean election victory.

As anticipation builds (at least among the party loyal) for the the Republican and Democratic National Conventions this week and next, we’ve decided to once again indulge your political junkie pleasures with a Convention Bump contest. Here are the rules.

Enter the following information in the "Comments" to this post by 5 pm on Friday, August 31:

1. Your prediction of how much of a bump Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will get following their party's respective conventions.
2. Tell us how long the bump will last.
3. You can, of course, predict no bump at all or a negative one (John Kerry, for example lost one percentage point following the Democratic convention in 2004).

Winner(s) will receive a coveted Miller Center T-shirt and be featured in a blog post with nominal title of RTT’s “Political Junkie of the Week.”