Skip to content

(apologies to George Gershwin and Gene Kelly)

By Prof. Michael Cornfield

June 5, 2017

My Facebook reaction to the president’s announcement to exit the Paris climate agreement last Thursday was this:

GSPM grad Travis Taylor was skeptical:

Travis is right about the low priority Americans accord the environment as a campaign issue. A Reuters/IPSOS poll concluded just before the announcement was in keeping with the trend; environment was selected at the top issue by a mere 3% of voters, far below the top three of economy/jobs (20%), health care (18%), and terrorism (16%).

But I think Trump gave the issue a boost in salience. He is by far the most famous person on earth, maybe in human history; he gets more free media coverage than the next 1,000 people combined. His spotlight moves quickly from topic to topic, but the Paris exit was declared from the Rose Garden, it was a binary decision everyone understands, and the time frame for it is four years, not decades (the eco-time frame) or one day (the @realdonaldtrump time frame).

So I think the announcement sets off a messaging contest in sync with the 2018 and 2020 elections. Good issue positioning entails linking across standard categories. The battle will be over Paris AND job creation (especially job loss to foreign countries, Trump’s issue citadel), Paris AND energy prices (gas, of course, but also electric) and even Paris AND quality of life (hazards and disasters) in the battleground states and districts where voters live. We’ve already seen Dominion Power becoming an issue in the 2017 Virginia primaries.

Behind the messaging, this will be a battle of corporate clout: fossil-fuels against renewables, inland against coastal real estate. The fossil inlanders have a tremendous head start in the form of Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity (AFP) and its related influence organizations. By 2015, AFP had a $150 million yearly budget, 500 paid staffers including directors in 34 states, and 2.4 million activists advocating, among other things, a “No Climate Tax” pledge taken by three-fifths of GOP House members and over half of GOP Senate members in the 113th Congress (2013-2014).

The opposition to Trump’s announcement voiced by CEOs of big corporations, Michael Bloomberg, the governors of California, New York, and Washington state, and numerous mayors is a significant reaction. That’s all it is for now.

It was a busy week in the world of politics and our professors at the Graduate School of Political Management had plenty to say about it. Here's a quick roundup of some of their insights.

Visit our news page for complete coverage.

Trump should follow the Bill Clinton scandal playbook

Professor Matt Dallek provides a scandal playbook for President Trump in Yahoo News. He says that the Bill Clinton approach, which requires delegating all scandal response to his lawyers and political aides, would work better than the current full-frontal assault on every new revelation.

Yes, Trump is getting pounded — but it doesn't mean impeachment is imminent

Professor Steve Billet tells the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that even though the headlines are bad for President Trump, the bottom line is that he is safe in office as long as he has the support of Congressional leadership.

The New TV Drama: As The White House Turns

Professor Michael Cornfield discusses the hottest drama in daytime television: the White House Daily Press Briefing with NPR. He says that the possibility of an eruption from  White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer makes each new installment must-see TV.

Deep dives into one’s personal life, hours on the road or the phone drumming up volunteer or financial support, and the understanding that most of the candidates that start a campaign finish it with a concession speech. Running for office is difficult both mentally and physically, so why do people do it and what should they know in advance?

At the Graduate School of Political Management, our students will be able to hear why, and everything that momentous decision entails in PMGT 6434, Running For Office, taught by former U.S. Rep. Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.

In addition to being a candidate, Maffei served as a communications strategist and spokesperson in the halls of Congress and on the campaign trail. Rounding out his resume was a stretch as a television news reporter and producer. His 360-degree view of the campaign process is part of the reason why our school is so thrilled to have him leading this course.

“’The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,’ proclaims Theodore Roosevelt. Having seen politics from so many viewpoints, I can communicate to the student how different it is to be the one with the name on the ballot. Political theory and well laid plans fly out the window as ideals are challenged and egos assaulted,” said Maffei.

Maffei’s course uses a series of in-class simulations to take students through key campaign milestones, such as an announcement of one’s candidacy, a stump speech, and a campaign contribution solicitation. Since the unexpected is to be expected in politics, Maffei’s class will also have to determine a communications strategy to debunk an inaccurate news story and hold a “damage control” press conference.

Maffei added, “Plans for governmental change and sophisticated policy ideas are irrelevant if their advocates can not win elections or – more likely given today’s toxic political atmosphere – refuse to ever run for office. Through personal accounts of and by politicians, readings on critical aspects of real world politics, and intense self-examination, group discussion and practice exercises, I will give students a sense of what it is like and what is needed to run, win, and hold political office.”

At the end of the course students should be able to understand the decision-making process behind a run, the components of a modern campaign, the purpose behind any effective candidate, and the key personality traits needed to succeed amid the intense pressures of a political campaign. Starting a run with that knowledge should give our prospective candidates and campaign managers a head start over the competition.

 

By Michael Cornfield, GSPM Associate Professor and Research Director

This morning Senate Majority Leader McConnell said that “Today we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work.” By current work McConnell meant that being conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That puts the now radioactively hot potato in the lap of the Committee’s chair, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr, a distant descendant of “Hamilton” star Aaron Burr.  (The House counterpart committee has no credibility left after the antics of Devin Nunes.)  Senator Burr, who has said this is his last term in Congress, said last night he was “troubled by the timing and reasoning” of FBI Director Comey’s firing last night.  Burr has thus far collaborated with the ranking Democrat on the Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, who has said the investigation into Russian involvement with the Trump campaign and the 2016 election “may very well be the most important thing I do in my public life.”

All this heartens me, as do Warner’s law degree and tech cred.

I presume and hope that neither Senator retains any ambition for higher office, as Warner has in the past.  I presume and hope neither has any financial ties to the Trump Organization or the Russian state.

Their success also hinges on their capacity to summon and manage experts in financial and online data analytics and Russian studies, to withstand the pressures of authoritarian personalities and media exposure, to command respect from both political parties and FBI agents, and to follow the truth and the law in the spirit of patriotism.

Right now, Burr and Warner are the linchpin in the American republic.

L to R: House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Ranking Member Richard Neal, D-Mass.

 

The Graduate School of Political Management, in conjunction with the Tax Foundation and the Archer Center at the University of Texas, recently hosted the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax writing panel on Capitol Hill, to discuss possible ways forward for tax reform.

Both Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Ranking Member Richard Neal, D-Mass., say there may be an opportunity for an overhaul, but any effort will have to be bipartisan.

Read more at GW Today.

GSPM Interim Director Lara Brown recently joined the Fox News Channel to discuss President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office. She says that this benchmark, first established by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term, puts too much stress on a system designed to move slowly. Rather than using it as a first report card, Brown says, the first 100 days should be seen as a president's first introduction to Washington and the federal government.

All of our professors bring real-world experience into the classroom, and our Legislative Affairs Program Director Professor Steve Billet is no exception. Before coming to GSPM, Prof. Billet was the head of the AT&T PAC, the telecom giant's political action committee and set up the groups government affairs practice in the European Union.

The Associated Press recently asked Prof. Billet  about the telecom industry's successful efforts to defeat an online privacy regulation in Congress.

He said, "the telecom industry's willingness to spend big on lobbying marks 'the difference between them and the Electronic Frontier Foundation guys.'"

Read the full article here.