Debating the GOP Debates

This year's GOP presidential primary has been interesting for many reasons, but one of the most striking is the large number of presidential debates. With 20 debates to date, this primary has already surpassed the 14 debates held in the 2008 GOP primary and is on pace to outnumber the 23 debates in that year's Democratic primary (which lasted until June). In addition to controversies raised within the debates, their sheer number has itself generated controversy. Supporters argue that maximizing the number of debates is ideal in order to fully inform voters about the different candidates; opponents complain that an excessive number of debates runs the risk of creating "debate fatigue," undermining both the quality of the debates and their value to voters.
My initial impression has been that there are too many debates - I certainly don't have time to watch all of them, and can't really even keep up with the soundbites from key moments in each debate. As I've read more, though, I've been somewhat persuaded by the pro-debate arguments: even if individual voters aren't benefiting from each one of the extremely frequent debates, each debate creates the possibility that additional voters will tune in and become more informed about the election. South Carolina's rapid pivot in favor of Newt Gingrich in the week preceding its primary demonstrates the dramatic effect such new information can have on an election.
That said, I'm inclined to think that the debates will soon reach a point of diminishing returns. It seems unlikely that the candidates have much new to say at this point, and I'm not sure that anyone who's ignored the last 20 debates will suddenly take an interest around number 25. However, given the benefits of the debates for the TV stations that hold them, and the perceived opportunities for candidates like Gingrich, I doubt that the pace will slow any time soon.

Germany's past and present (New historicism)

As I've learned about Germany in Social Studies this year, I've been struck by the profound impact that the memory of Nazi rule has had on the country. The Holocaust and World War II still cast a shadow over many aspects of German politics and culture, with effects ranging from an aversion to flag-waving and other displays of patriotism, to a reluctance to pursue a more assertive role in Europe.The Germans' views of Nazism have been unfavorable throughout their history, but over time these views and Germany's current situation have influenced each other in different ways.
The overwhelming German attitudes toward Nazism seem to have been shame and the determination never to let such atrocities occur again. This accounts for the nation's reluctance to engage in flag-waving or any other expression of national pride - these kinds of patriotic imagery have been tainted by association with Hitler. The second article I linked to above also argues that it can account for some of Germany's behavior during the Eurozone crisis. Germany's history has fostered apprehension both domestically and throughout Europe at the prospect of a stronger Germany taking the lead, with the result that Germany has been hesitant to do so.
The reason this is so interesting is that, very recently, some of these attitudes seem to have started to shift. As Europe's largest and most fiscally sound economy, Germany has had some degree of leadership thrust upon it, regardless of whether it wants to assume that role or not. Meanwhile, articles like this one suggest that patriotism and symbols of national pride are also becoming acceptable. These changes are probably linked, with Germany's increased international prominence providing an additional rationale for patriotism. While I mentioned above that this isn't really a fundamental change in how a historical event is viewed - Germans have consistently agreed about the evil of Nazism - it shows that more subtle shifts are also possible. Changing circumstances have prompted Germans to revise their understanding of the meaning of their nation's past and its implications for the present.

Third Parties, Ideology and Pragmatism

Over winter break, my family was talking about politics and Congress and someone raised the possibility of a centrist third party, one that would break the partisan deadlock in Congress by proposing pragmatic, centrist solutions to pressing issues. They weren't alone in this proposal - this letter writer makes a similar argument, saying such a party would not have to be "constrained by ideology" or beholden to special interests. While this sounds like a good idea in theory - it's hard to oppose the party of pragmatic solutions - I'm not convinced that it would work in practice.

My main objection to this sort of third party is one of the supposed advantages: its lack of ideology. Without any overarching principles or philosophy, how will members of this party choose which policies to support? Economic policies, for example, are (ideally) driven by a particular economic theory - Obama's stimulus relied on the Keynesian idea that government intervention is necessary to stabilize the economy, while GOP proposals like tax cuts and deregulation draw on supply-side economics, which focus on reducing the barriers to free enterprise. Pragmatism just means embracing the policies that work, but without some sort of guiding philosophy how can we know which policies those are?

The moderates already in Congress illustrate this problem. To continue the focus on economic policy, Obama's stimulus bill passed because three moderate GOP senators - Snowe, Collins and Specter - supported it in exchange for the removal of what Collins called $110 billion of "unnecessary spending." A moderate third party would probably forge frequent deals of this sort with the other, ideological parties. The problem is that, from a policy standpoint, the deal didn't make any sense. The underlying idea of stimulus is that during a recession, consumers and businesses are reluctant to spend, so government needs to borrow/tax and then spend money in order to get the economy moving. If this idea is sound, then that $110 billion wasn't "unnecessary" at all - it would have made a further valuable contribution to the recovery, on top of the additional stimulus. On the other hand, if the GOP is right, then the government is just worse than the private sector at allocating resources productively. In that case, the 3 senators voted in favor of $827 billion in "unnecessary spending."

In other words, they helped push the country toward a compromise that nobody thought would work - conservatives because it was a massive government intervention in the economy, and liberals because it was a half-measure downsized for no good reason. I'm not sure why proponents of a third party think a larger group of moderates would do any better.