Utku Sezgin: Can President Obama’s Proposals Succeed in a Gridlocked Congress?

State of the Union addresses are the annual wish-list presentations of American presidents, mixed with appeals to rally behind the leader of the nation.

The addresses stem from the once-obscure mandate the Constitution gives presidents to submit proposals, recommendations and their political views to Congress. Until the 20th century, presidents mostly sent Congress written messages without any of today’s media-savvy pomp. In recent decades the speeches have become widely-anticipated political theater to be parsed for a sense of where a president aims to take the country. However, despite the modern presidency’s inflated powers, proposing bills to Congress and getting to sign bills containing those proposals later on is not the same thing.

President Barack Obama delivered the first State of the Union address of his second term last night, doing his best to lay out his vision—emboldened by an electoral mandate—before a partisan, polarized, divided and oft-gridlocked Congress. But the future looks uncertain. Read the rest of this entry…

James Kahn Explains the Components and Consequences of the Looming Fiscal Cliff

As 2012 draws to a close, the United States government faces a financial crisis that has Republicans and Democrats divided. But what exactly are they fighting about and what is at stake for the country? Dr. James Kahn, the Henry and Bertha Kressel University Professor of Economics at Yeshiva University, breaks down the political and financial components of the fiscal cliff and explains how taxpayers could be affected if Congress fails to act.

Student Medical Ethics Society Examines Controversial Health Care Bill from Practical, Ethical and Halakhic Perspectives

American health care is facing its most comprehensive overhaul since 1965, and everyone from doctors to patients to employers will be affected. Often referred to as “Obamacare,” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became one of the most contested topics in this year’s presidential election, and its political, financial and ethical implications are still widely debated. On November 26, Yeshiva University’s Student Medical Ethics Society sought to debunk the myths and misconceptions about the controversial health care bill at an event that provided students with a practical walkthrough of the complex bill and analyzed it through the lens of ethics and halakha.

From left, Dr. Kevin O’Halloran, Dr. Herb Leventer and Rabbi Yosef Blau address students at “Obamacare: The Enigma Unveiled.”

Titled “Obamacare: The Enigma Unveiled,” the event began with a crash course in American medical history by Dr. Kevin O’Halloran, a senior resident at the Montefiore / Albert Einstein College of Medicine Department of Orthopedic Surgery who recently published a review article on Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), a facet of PPACA. O’Halloran highlighted the factors that set the stage for health care reform in 2010, noting that more than 16 percent of the population was uninsured that year, private and public health care expenditures in the United States had totaled more than 15 percent of the country’s GDP, and America ranked seven out of seven developed countries for “quality, efficiency, access, equity and healthy lives” according to the Commonwealth Fund. Read the rest of this entry…

How Social Media Helped Shape the Presidential Election

This year’s election night set new records in social media history. Twitter peaked at 327,000 tweets per minute and President Barack Obama announced his own reelection by tweeting a photo of himself embracing his wife with the caption “Four more years”—which quickly became the most shared image since the platform’s inception. Election night also doubled the previous record of 10 million tweets during the first presidential debate. Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms experienced similar surges throughout the election season—surges Robert Longert, adjunct instructor of English, monitored closely with his social media class at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women.

Using the presidential campaign as a model, Robert Longert and his Stern College class closely monitored engagement and trends in social media.

Longert’s class, Topics in Communication: Social Media, used the United States presidential election as a model to study the usage and spread of information over social media platforms. YU News spoke with Longert about how social media impacted the election and how it will continue to impact American culture in the future. Read the rest of this entry…

From Welfare Reform to Taxes, Richard Caputo Explains Hot Button Issues of 2012 Election

With the debates over and the presidential election around the corner, YU News sat down with Dr. Richard Caputo, professor of social policy and research and the director of the PhD program in social welfare at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work, to sort through all the campaign rhetoric. Breaking down each candidate’s stance on issues ranging from Social Security and Medicare reform to income inequality and tax cuts, Caputo provides an in-depth look at some of the issues that will weigh on the minds of voters on November 6. Read the rest of this entry…

Vice Presidential Candidates and American Politics: Four Questions with Joseph Luders  

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is close to selecting his vice presidential running mate. According to several news reports, the short list includes Ohio Senator Rob Portman, former Minnesota Goverenor Tim Pawlenty, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. But how important is this choice?

Dr. Joseph Luders, is the David and Ruth Gottesman Chair in Political Science at YU.

YUNews spoke with Dr. Joseph Luders, Yeshiva University’s David and Ruth Gottesman Chair in Political Science, about what factors presidential candidates consider in choosing a running mate, the impact a vice presidential nominee can have on a campaign, and how all of it plays out in the 2012 election. Read the rest of this entry…

Nationally Syndicated Talk Show Host Michael Medved Discusses the Race for the White House

As the 2012 presidential race kicks into high gear, nationally-acclaimed conservative talk show host, film critic and political commentator Michael Medved shared his insights and predictions about election outcomes with Yeshiva University students on April 18.

Michael Medved speaks to YU students at a Republican Club event on April 18.

Medved, a Sabbath-observant host of the nationally syndicated The Michael Medved Show, speculated about Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign strategy and a potentially unprecedented outcome of the election. Medved also discussed factors he felt affected the Jewish vote and reflected on his first experiences in politics, as a student working for Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign during his junior year at Yale University.

“Every election, without exception, we’re told this is the most important and critical election of your lifetime,” said Medved. “They say that to get you to vote. But this election truly is exciting and unpredictable.”

According to Medved, Romney could potentially win the Electoral College, but there is a chance for a crushing win of the popular vote by incumbent President Barack Obama—a situation Medved said had not arisen in American politics since the 1876 presidential race between Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes. He outlined as well the strategy he felt could regain the White House for Republicans: conservative substance, moderate tone.

“Most people, when they vote, don’t vote for someone who inspires them, but against something they fear,” Medved said. “The Republicans need Romney to inspire and incite conservatives without scaring away moderates and people in the middle.”

The talk was hosted by the YU Republican Club and also featured a question-and-answer session, during which students and members of the public sought Medved’s take on everything from Romney’s best pick as running mate (“Senator Rob Portman is likely, but dull and safe. I like New Mexico Governor Suzanne Martinez for the job.”) to the possibility of a third party splitting the vote.

“Because Mr. Medved is both an observant Jew with a personal connection to the YU community and an influential political commentator, we felt he has an interesting perspective on the upcoming presidential election,” said Eitan Polster ’13YC, vice president of YU Republican Club. “His incredible success on the radio makes him a highly sought-after speaker and we were honored to host him to speak to us.  We felt that his ability to relate to millions of listeners on a daily basis gives him the unique ability to engage and captivate a diverse YU audience from all sections of the political spectrum.”

That was certainly true for Holly Hampton, a junior majoring in history at Stern College for Women, who described herself as a longtime Medved listener who first heard him on The Dennis Prager Show. “I really learned a lot about the upcoming election and it was interesting to hear his view of the Republican candidate and party,” she said.

For Medved, whose daughter Sarah is a graduate of Stern College and YU’s Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, the opportunity to speak at YU also offered a chance to connect with students who were passionate about and invested in their future as American citizens and Orthodox Jews. “I’ve always been impressed by the bright and refined young people I’ve met here,” said Medved. “YU is a resource of talent within the Jewish community.”

Learn more about the 2012 presidential election from leading political experts at the Dr. Marcia Robbins-Wilf Scholar-in-Residence program on April 30.

Political Experts to Discuss the Role of Religion and its Impact on the Upcoming Presidential Election at April 30 Robbins-Wilf Program

With the presidential election campaign in full swing, Yeshiva University will host a discussion on “Religion and the 2012 Election” featuring PBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield, pollster Anna Greenberg and university professor and religion columnist Peter Steinfels. The lecture, part of the Dr. Marcia Robbins-Wilf Scholar-in-Residence program at YU’s Stern College for Women, will be held on Monday, April 30 at 7:30 p.m. at the Schottenstein Cultural Center, 239 East 34th Street, between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.

Jeff Greenfield

“Religion has played a prominent role in the 2012 Republican primaries so far and looks poised to do so for the general election,” said Bryan Daves, clinical assistant professor of political science at Yeshiva University and moderator of the event. “In what many observers expect to be a very close race, issues related to religion could tip the balance. We are fortunate to have three of the keenest observers of American elections and the role of religion and public life to give us insights into how, why, and to what extent, religion will have an impact on how Americans will vote this year.”

One of America’s most respected political analysts, Jeff Greenfield has spent more than 30 years on network television and currently serves as an anchor on PBS’ Need to Know. A four-time Emmy Award-winner and columnist for Yahoo! News, he is known for his quick wit and savvy insight into politics, history, the media and current events. Greenfield has served as anchor booth analyst or floor reporter for every national political convention since 1988 and reported on virtually every important domestic political story in recent decades. Greenfield has authored or co-authored 12 books, including national bestselling novels Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics—JFK, RFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan, The People’s Choice, The Real Campaign and Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow!, an insider account of the contested 2000 presidential election.

Anna Greenberg

Anna Greenberg is a leading pollster and an expert in survey research methodology with nearly 15 years of experience. Since joining Greenberg Quinlan Rosner in 2001, Greenberg has worked with many elected officials and a wide range of NGOs and advocacy groups. Her areas of expertise include women and politics, LGBT rights, religion and politics, healthcare policy and drug policy reform. Greenberg is an active participant in the advanced analytics community; she leads the company’s advances in micro-targeting and understanding the impact of social media on public opinion.

Peter Steinfels

Peter Steinfels is a professor and co-director at the Fordham University Center on Religion and Culture, former religion columnist for The New York Times, and a former editor of Commonweal, an independent biweekly journal of political, religious and literary opinion. A two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee, he created and penned his biweekly column “Beliefs,” dealing with religion and ethics from 1990 to 2010. He is also the author of A People Adrift: The Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America, The Neoconservatives, and co-edited Death Inside Out with Robert M.Veatch. Steinfels has contributed chapters to 17 other books and written articles and reviews for The New Republic, Esquire, Harper’s, Dissent, Le Nouvel Observateur, The Nation, Partisan Review and many other distinguished journals.

Dr. Robbins-Wilf, a founding member of the Stern College Board of Directors, established and funds the Scholar-in-Residence program, which brings top scholars, authors, artists and opinion makers to Stern College—offering students unique perspectives on the world. Admission is free and open to the public with valid photo ID and ticket, which can be reserved at http://religionandelection2012.eventbrite.com/.

Study by Ariel Malka Explores Connection Between Being Religious and Politically Conservative

A common refrain in commentary on the primaries has been that Mitt Romney is regarded as insufficiently conservative.

Religious Americans are no more inherently politically conservative than non-religious Americans, according to a new study by YU

This is said to account for a difficulty garnering support from the religiously traditional segments of the Republican base. This claim is consistent with a broader theme in American political commentary during the last four decades: religiosity is said to go naturally with political conservatism. And a regular consumer of political news will receive a preponderance of messages implying that these characteristics are organically linked.

But to what extent are highly religious Americans actually more politically conservative than are less religious and secular Americans? And if they are more conservative, what are the real reasons for this? My colleagues and I conduct research on this topic, so permit me to share what we and others have found.

Religious Americans are, on average, more politically conservative than are less religious Americans, but they are so to an extent that varies substantially across different issue domains. Religiosity — how important a person considers religion to be in his or her life, as well as an individual’s frequency of religious behaviors such as church attendance — has its strongest correlations with the “moral” issue stances. To a relatively strong extent, highly religious people are more pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage than are less religious people.

But when it comes to other political issues, the links between religiosity and conservative positions are tenuous. For example, consider the long-running political division between Americans who support larger government and greater social welfare spending — generally characterized as liberals — and Americans who support smaller government and lower social welfare spending, whom we regard as conservatives.

Religiosity possesses a weak to non-existent relation with conservative economic attitudes. The highly religious are either no more likely or ever-so-slightly more likely to hold conservative economic attitudes. Moreover, religious people tend to be no more conservative than the less religious on many other political issues, such as gun control, racial policy, and the death penalty; in fact, they may actually be more liberal on the latter. “God and guns” do not go together naturally in the way that some media commentary suggests.

Why, then, does religiosity relate to conservatism at all? One possibility is that there is some type of organic connection between being a religious person and being a conservative person. Perhaps the traits, moral standards and ways of thinking that characterize religious people also naturally lead them to prefer conservative social outcomes and policies. Another possibility, however, is that this relation really has to do with the messages from political and religious discourse, and how some people respond to these messages.

Two pieces of evidence support this latter explanation. First, the relationship between religiosity and conservatism varies across people exposed to different religious messages. This tends to be strongest among white evangelical Protestants, the very group whose elites have been the most vocal supporters of a religiously based conservatism. But this connection tends to be weaker among white mainline Protestants as well as white and Latino Catholics. And black Protestants — whose religious tradition has emphasized rectification of prior injustice — display a relation between religiosity and many liberal political attitudes.

If being religious were naturally associated with political conservatism, then the relation between these characteristics would not vary so much across groups receiving different religious messages.

Second, if the religious tend to be conservative because they are responding to political messages, one would expect a reliable relationship between religiosity and conservatism only among Americans who are highly exposed to such messages. Our recent findings suggest that this is in fact the case.

When one looks only at the politically engaged Americans — those who are very politically knowledgeable and interested — the religious are more conservative than are the less religious on almost all political issues. However, when one looks at the Americans who are not that interested in or knowledgeable about politics, the religious and the less religious tend to hold very similar political attitudes. That is, exposure to messages that point to a bond between religiosity and conservatism seems to be necessary to translate one’s religiosity into conservative positions on most issues.

Such findings run counter to the narrative depicting a psychologically deep-seated schism between religious conservatives and secular liberals. Rather, they suggest that if Americans were exposed to different political messages, the relation between religion and political attitudes would likely be different. Perhaps there is no enduring feature of human psychological makeup that favors a link between religiosity and political conservatism.

Ariel Malka is an assistant professor of psychology at Yeshiva University. He conducts research in political psychology and public opinion. Read the full study here. This article first appeared on FoxNews.com. The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to Yeshiva University.

Learn more about the role of religion and its impact on the 2012 presidential election from leading political experts at the Dr. Marcia Robbins-Wilf Scholar-in-Residence program on April 30.

Presidential Elections, Global Justice, National Security and Middle East Conflict: Political Science at Yeshiva University

As the 2012 presidential elections heat up, Yeshiva University’s political science courses are offering students an inside look at the domestic and international issues dominating today’s news cycle.

According to Dr. Joseph Luders, the David and Ruth Gottesman Chair of Political Science at YU, the spring semester is the most heavily enrolled in the department’s history. “These courses are academically demanding, topically relevant,  and engaging because they resonate with student concerns,” he explained. “Students are looking for courses that tackle real-world issues.”

For example, in Dr. James Bourke’s Global Justice and Human Rights class at Stern College for Women, students will immerse themselves in raging debates about hunger, poverty, economic development, gender inequality, human trafficking, lack of education and environmental degradation. They’ll ask what Bourke considers to be the central question posed to ethical citizens of first world countries: Are we obligated to help?

“In-depth discussion of theoretical perspectives and moral philosophy will help students think about these issues in terms of the duties and responsibilities they have as human beings, global citizens and citizens of their own countries, as well as how to relate broad issues of global inequality to their identities in personal and social settings,” said Bourke. Because of the course’s emphasis on women’s rights, it will also count towards a minor in women’s studies.

Dr. Charles Freilich, a former Israel national security adviser, will bring his unique professional experience to the Stern course Arab-Israeli Conflict. That class will examine beleaguered peace negotiations from a policy-making standpoint, putting students in the shoes of real-world leaders as they seek to understand the constraints, demands and positions of key players in the Middle East, both historically and today.

“Having worked with policymakers and the Israeli government for over 20 years, I can bring my understanding of how these things work to the classroom,” said Freilich. “We’re not going to focus on what we think is right so much as what the actual leaders can do given their personal preferences and strategic and political constraints.”

Women and the Law, a new Honors course investigating legal theory and the contemporary American legal system from a feminist perspective, will be taught by Dr. Adina Levine, a Stern and Harvard Law School graduate. “We’ll be looking at the kinds of issues that are especially relevant at a women’s college, like whether separate sex education is constitutional or if it reinforces stereotypes and glass ceilings, and hear the law’s current perspective on domestic violence, discrimination, employment and pregnancy,” said Levine. Her advice to students: “Don’t take what the media tells you or the current state of law, which is constantly changing, for granted. It’s only because of critical thinking that the law changes at all—the status quo is not necessarily the right, best or correct way to be.”

At Yeshiva College, Dr. Ariel Malka’s Psychology of Mass Opinion course offers students an eye-opening glimpse into the psychological processes and characteristics that shape public opinion about political issues, from policy preferences and presidential approval ratings to perceptions of how the economy is doing. Students will study the way genetic makeup, personality, media and socialization influence political views, and will also overview research on political judgment and decision-making processes. A current events component will focus on opinion and election polling surrounding the primaries and the lead-up to the general election.

“There’s this idea of a culture war in much of the rhetoric surrounding American politics, that Americans are bitterly divided on a wide set of hot-button issues, the stereotype of religious gun-toting rednecks versus secular latte-sipping liberal elitists, but it’s more complicated than that,” said Malka. “Understanding this complexity will give students a better sense of how opinions are actually structured in the American electorate and the nature of the current American electoral coalitions.”

Also at Yeshiva College, noted national security policy expert Dr. Evan Resnick will lead a course called Power Threats and National Security. Students will examine grand strategy in the United States throughout the 20th century, focusing especially on the idea of containment during the Cold War, as well as stances taken by world powers throughout history, from the Roman Empire to Renaissance-age Spain and England. They will also study emerging national security strategies proposed by scholars and analysts in the wake of 9/11.

“This is an era where there’s a lot of uncertainty about American grand strategy,” said Resnick. “We’re seeing the beginnings of a serious debate we really haven’t had since the end of the Second World War and these decisions are no longer the preserve of the academic think tanks. These are bread-and-butter issues now.”

Talya Seidman, a political science major at Stern, will be taking Women and Law and either Arab-Israeli Conflict or Dr. Ben Neinass’ Politics of Memory in the spring. “I think it’s important to study these topics today because we live in a time of immediate global connection and social protest,” she said. “The tools to know what’s going on all over the country and world are literally at our fingertips. We, as college-educated, young adults should be able to comprehend the significance of these important current events.”