Negotiating with Terrorists?

Welcome home, Bowe

“U.S. policy has changed,” declared Senator Ted Cruz on Sunday, “Now we make deals with terrorists.” [1]

President Obama recently announced that after being held in captivity for five years by the Afghani Taliban, Sargent Bowe Bergdahl was freed. In exchange, the United States released five members of Taliban from Guantanamo Bay. Ted Cruz and other Republicans say this deal violates the U.S.’s policy of never negotiating with terrorists. These critics argue this gives terrorists an incentive to take more American soldiers hostage. The Obama Administration responds that this deal was a simple exchange of prisoners of war, which the U.S. has done with adversaries throughout history. [2]

So which is it? Negotiating with terrorists (a dangerous new precedent), or a POW swap (a routine tactic with long-standing historical precedent)?

"OBAMA'S GAME-CHANGING DEAL"iranian nuclear game: part 2

<< back to part 1

In response to the recent international agreement to temporarily freeze Iran's nuclear program, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter accused the Obama Administration of “making friends with our former enemies." [1] Representative Hunter, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, declared that instead of negotiating the US should drop “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian enrichment facilities. [2]

I wrote my previous post before Obama had secured this most recent nuclear deal. Today I'll explain why this preliminary agreement is a game-changer.

"A WOLF IN SHEEPS' CLOTHING?"iranian nuclear game: part 1

skip to part 2 >>

After an exhausting decade-long standoff over the Iranian nuclear program, Iran's moderate new President Hassan Rouhani seems like a breath of fresh air. "Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the regions," Rouhani said in his recent speech to the United Nations in which he declared that his country is now prepared to engage in renewed negotiations over the nuclear issue. [1] Many observers have found President Rouhani's conciliatory tone to be a welcome change from the hardline stance of his Holocaust-denying predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

The Mean Voter Theorem and the GOP Death Spiral

In 2010, the Tea Party movement was born, sweeping a new breed of ultra-conservative Republicans to power in the House of Representatives. Whether you support or oppose the Tea Party, it's undeniable that these right-wing activists are the reason the GOP has become more extreme than in decades. On every issue -- from taxes, to background checks for gun sales, to birth control access -- the Tea Party has ensured that only the most ideologically pure candidates can win Republican primaries.

This observation is backed up by empirical research. Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, political scientists from the American Enterprise Institute, recently conducted a comprehensive study of party polarization in the US over the past several decades. [1] They found that American democracy is indeed becoming more partisan, but this polarization is all in one direction: the data shows the Tea Party has pushed Republicans to become radically more conservative on average, while the Democratic Party isn't much more liberal than in the past. [2]

In this post, we will model the long-term effect that this abrupt rightward shift among the Tea Party faction of GOP primary voters will have on the Republican Party over several election cycles. We'll illustrate how this sudden right turn drives moderate Republicans away from the party. Once these moderates leave the party the average ideological position of GOP primary voters will become even more extreme, which will push even more moderate voters away from the GOP. This death spiral will continue until the Republican Party shrinks down to an ultra-conservative kernel of hardliners.

To build our game theory model, we'll use a political science hypothesis that says elections are won by the candidate that reflects the political views of the average voter.