Opening Packet – Negative – hss 2017 offcase materials start here

Specific answers to hegemony module

(see also the “Extensions vs. Hegemony” header)

1nc – gridlock

No sweeping legislation – Dems want to deny Trump wins

Cottle 1-23-17 (MICHELLE COTTLE is a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a Washington correspondent for the Daily Beast. “How Will Congress Cope With Trump?” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-congress/514085/ //LLP)

Democrats are prepping a divide-and-conquer strategy: foot-drag and (yes) gridlock on policies favored by congressional Republicans (like killing Obamacare and unraveling Wall Street reforms) but extend a hand to Trump on campaign promises he made that mesh with their values. (Think: infrastructure investment and trade.) “We are presenting a choice to the president,” said the senior Senate aide. If he pursues issues that align with Democratic priorities, “he will find Democrats eager to work with him.” This will, however, require Trump to “buck the Republicans in Congress,” stressed the aide. Democrats’ selective cooperation is not aimed at “finding middle ground” with GOP members, the aide clarified, but about Trump’s “upending decades of Republican orthodoxy” and “going around congressional Republicans” on particular issues. The goal: deny the majority legislative wins while positioning Democrats as the party that can work with Trump to get stuff done. Not that Democrats really expect Trump to follow through on his progressive promises. They tend to see those as just another piece of the massive con job he perpetrated on the electorate, and exposing the con is central to rallying public sentiment against the president, they say. “We have to confront him on substantive issues in surgical ways: Show reporters and constituents exactly how he’s not living up to his impossible promises,” said the House Democratic aide. The white working class tends to be not only less conservative on social issues than the GOP’s evangelical base but also significantly less hostile to Big Government. Operationally, this will mean getting better at the “granular stuff,” like coordinating news releases, said the House aide. “Have every House Dem send something to their local press list and post on social media at the same time. You may have noticed, House Democrats aren’t very good at this currently.” And all seem to agree that it does not pay to go tweet-to-tweet with Trump. That way lies madness. There will, of course, be issues on which individual Democratic members need to break ranks in order to keep constituents back home happy. This is as it ever was. Thus, especially on environmental and energy issues, look for Senate Democratic chief Chuck Schumer to allow his troops (especially those up for reelection in 2018 in states won by Trump) occasional voting flexibility--so long as the overall count denies Republicans a filibuster-proof supermajority. (At some point, look for restive House Republicans, and perhaps even Trump, to pressure McConnell to “go nuclear” and do away with the filibuster. But McConnell is an institutionalist, and Senators on both sides of the aisle tend to be wary of tinkering with the chamber’s prerogatives. Certainly, many Democrats now regret the 2013 move by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid to end the filibustering of presidential appointees below the Supreme Court level.) Then there is the oh-so-delicate crusade upon which both parties will be embarking: wooing--or at least not alienating--the white working-class voters who put Trump in office. This demographic has issues with both congressional teams, and both acknowledge that the cohort must be handled with care.

Gridlock causes better policy formation

Smith 16 (8-15-16 John R. Smith is chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, and owner of a financial services company. “Pray for gridlock” http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/08/15/pray-for-gridlock-379515 //LLP)

It’s amusing when people get their shorts in a tangle over gridlock. Some people think that government gridlock is an “ain’t it awful” thing, a sign of failure, a lack of “progress”. That’s all wrong and backwards. We should pray for gridlock sometimes, because it’s the telltale sign that our system is working and that government is not the all-powerful lord over our lives. In our history a divided government and slow change has produced better long-term results. Some so-called political experts make a great mistake to believe that progress– the clarion call of the political “progressives”– comes from legislation, and an even worse mistake that additional legislation means more progress. When politicians work to pass insane laws, gridlock is good, because harm gets stymied when wrong-headed adversaries are bottled up and checkmated. Gridlock often allows time for anger and ill-will to simmer down, and for reasonable compromise to raise its head. Gridlock is the absence of legislative and executive action, providing relief from would-be poisonous activities. And, gridlock helps give minorities and the minority viewpoint a bigger voice. For the business community, when government is not doing us any favors, gridlock is good. When government is actually hurting us, gridlock is great. When government is causing businesses to fail or stop creating jobs, gridlock becomes essential. But the progressives complain when Congress doesn’t get much done: “Congress hasn’t been productive, Congressional inaction is a problem”, they lament. This liberal approach to government is that more legislation and more laws is good, and the failure to add laws to the books is something requiring explanation. The truth is that we need fewer laws. Why the griping over gridlock? It is part of the Constitutional framers’ design. The founding fathers, having fought through a revolutionary war, wanted “a system cautiously formed and steadily pursued”, as founder John Jay wrote. This meant imposing restraint on the governmental process by requiring high levels of consensus before government could act. The Constitution was written to make new legislation difficult to attain and impose. The founders designed a system to assure that most legislative proposals would never become law, and they did it by requiring two houses of Congress and the president to agree. They made it even tougher to amend the Constitution itself, and a “temperate” Senate was designed to decelerate proposed changes. Recently, a leftist journalist said that a Trump presidency would be an awful thing because no governmental agency will get along with him, Trump will have both houses of Congress in an uproar, and all of Washington trying to thwart his every move so he won’t get anything done. In truth, that is what I hope will happen. The one thing that the business community loves across the nation, most of the time, is a stymied government. When that happens, it usually means no new regulations and onerous laws are being passed, no new programs are being created along with their new taxes. We are wallowing in laws in this country already. Gridlock means risks to businesses are reduced and, often, restraints to our freedom may never come to pass. Gridlock is better than malfunction or oppression. By design, our system of government should demand broad, durable majorities before it will permit major change. Since government competence is usually unattainable, gridlock and bickering may well be a good price to pay for opposing the transformers by tying their hands and stopping them from imposing more laws. Handcuffing Washington is usually a good thing, a big win. Valuable things are not so easily created but they are easily destroyed.

2nc – xt: gridlock inev

Partisanship

Hale 10-20 – Matthew Hale, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Seton Hall University, Gerald Pomper, Board of Governors Professor of Political Science at the Eagleton Institute of Politics of Rutgers University and Ben Dworkin, Director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, “Can Election End Deadlock in D.C.?”, App, http://www.app.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/10/20/congress-deadlock-election-control/92453138/

Congressional gridlock has plagued Washington in recent years, fueled in large part by Republican desires to resist President Obama’s initiatives at nearly any cost. The inaction carries a heavy burden that’s only growing worse, leaving important measures undone and further damaging public trust in government. We asked several of New Jersey’s leading political experts about the overall impact of a such a dysfunctional Congress and the prospects for a more cooperative future.

Responding were Matthew Hale, an associate professor of political science and public affairs at Seton Hall University; Gerald Pomper, Board of Governors Professor of Political Science at the Eagleton Institute of Politics of Rutgers University (emeritus); Ben Dworkin, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University; and Anne C. Pluta, assistant professor of political science and economics at Rowan University.

We hear a lot about congressional gridlock these days in part because Republicans have been so openly resistant to cooperating with President Obama. But has Congress really been as inactive as we think?

Hale: The reason why this Congress seems so dysfunctional is that it can’t even agree on things both sides like. Federal aid for disasters was once a given because disasters don’t care about congressional lines. But as we will remember, getting federal aid for superstorm Sandy took some serious arm-twisting. It eventually happened but it is an example of how difficult it is for this Congress to agree on things that should be easy.

Pomper: Congress has been active, but not productive. It’s hard to even pass appropriations bills, the rock-bottom necessity to keep the country in operation. It has taken months to deal even with the Zika virus, a clear danger to American health. Critical legislation — recognized by both parties — to repair Obamacare, build infrastructure or fill the Supreme Court vacancy never gets through Congress. Instead Republicans engage, actively to be sure, in fruitless measures to repeal Obamacare or repetitive committee hearings to combat Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Dworkin: On several major issues, today’s Congress has been unable to act. Passing the federal budget — once seen by many as a critical responsibility of Congress — still hasn’t been accomplished, even under one-party control. Bills that have broad, bipartisan support, such as appropriations for energy and water, are delayed repeatedly because of non-germane amendments involving foreign policy.

Trump

Hulse 1-31 (Carl Hulse is a congressional correspondent for the New York Times, a position he has held since May 2002. In that role, he provides regular coverage on the legislative and political activities of both the House and Senate. Previously, he was an editor in the Washington Bureau beginning in February 2001. “A Jarring New Level of Confrontation and Conflict Hits Washington” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/a-jarring-new-level-of-confrontation-and-conflict-hits-washington.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news //LLP)

President Trump made clear in his fiery inaugural speech that he was going to challenge the Washington establishment. Now the establishment is quickly pushing back, creating a palpable air of uncertainty and chaos in the opening days of his administration. The new president fired an acting attorney general who refused to defend the administration’s executive order on immigration. Democrats on Tuesday boycotted Senate confirmation hearings to prevent votes on cabinet nominees. State Department employees opposed to the administration were urged to quit if they didn’t like Mr. Trump’s direction. Even after years of unbreakable gridlock and unyielding partisanship, it was a jarring new level of confrontation and conflict, and it was contributing to a building sense of crisis just as the new president was to disclose the identity of a new Supreme Court nominee — a selection certain to further inflame tensions. Republicans, adjusting to the new era, seemed blindsided by the rapid pace of events and the worrying failure of the new administration to engage in the information-sharing and consultation that would typically accompany the issuance of a potentially explosive proposal like the freeze on visas for refugees and immigrants from select countries. “It’s regrettable that there was some confusion with the rollout,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters Tuesday, noting that top Republicans learned of the contents of the order only as it was being issued. That secretive, closely held approach may be the preferred choice of the president and self-proclaimed disrupters like his senior adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, who is quickly emerging as the power in the West Wing, but not by more conventional politicians who definitely don’t like to be caught off guard. Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said similar failings had emerged in the early days of previous administrations but would not be tolerated for long. “You get a brief period you’re allowed for a learning curve, but after that, you have to get your act together,” Mr. King said. One veteran of past Republican administrations, acknowledging the Trump White House was still in its “shakedown” phase, encouraged the president’s staff to focus more on consultation to avert confusion. “Process matters,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. “You are dealing with not just senior management, but with a variety of constituencies and a board of directors of 535 people.”

2nc – impact inevitable

China, Iran, North Korea failures

Dorell 17 – Oren, USA Today, “Tillerson's diplomatic skills confront a world in chaos”, 2/1/17, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/01/rex-tillerson-state-department-donald-trump/97291434/

Iran Trump has called the Iran nuclear containment deal with the United States and five other world powers “horrible,” and Vice President Pence said it should be shredded. But Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said the deal should be kept in place. “More beneficial at this point is to look at all the aspects of the Iran deal, are they in compliance?” Haley said during her confirmation hearing. “We need to hold them accountable.” Even if Iran fully complies with the deal, which limits its nuclear capabilities to peaceful purposes, Tehran will likely challenge Trump in other ways. On Wednesday, national security adviser Michael Flynn said "we are officially putting Iran on notice" for a ballistic missile test Sunday and a separate attack by Iranian-backed Houthi militants against a Saudi naval vessel. If Trump decides to renegotiate the Iran deal, he'll face certain opposition not only from Iran but also from the U.N. and other Security Council members who signed the accord. Finding a compromise could be one of Tillerson's biggest headaches. China Trump has repeatedly antagonized China. He broke U.S. protocol by taking a congratulatory call from the president of Taiwan, which the Communist government in Beijing considers a renegade province. Trump announced on Twitter the U.S. would not be bound by the 1979 “one China” policy, under which the U.S. government has recognized Beijing as the only legitimate government of China. Trump has criticized China for its military expansion on disputed territory in the South China Sea. He has threatened to counter China’s protectionist trade policy with tariffs on Chinese imports, accused it of undervaluing its currency to boost its exports to the U.S. and faulted China for not doing enough to stop North Korea’s nuclear program. All that has prompted China's military to declare war with the U.S. more likely during a Trump presidency. If Tillerson can't keep the peace, he'll have to turn the problem over to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. North Korea The only world leader who may be more unpredictable than Trump is North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who has repeatedly threatened the incinerate parts of the U.S. with nuclear weapons if provoked. To back up that threat, North Korea has conducted a number of tests of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in violation of international law. Trump has vowed that he won't let North Korea develop a nuclear missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. But he has not said how. He also has raised the possibility of negotiating a deal with North Korea, which has violated two prior agreements with U.S. presidents. Tillerson may find negotiations with any other world leader easier than dealing with the mercurial Kim

Taiwan and Mexico

Blake 16 (12-3-16 Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix. A Minnesota native, he has also written about politics for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Hill newspaper. “Donald Trump keeps confirming fears about his diplomatic skills” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/03/donald-trump-keeps-confirming-fears-about-his-diplomatic-skills/?utm_term=.d99a718a0bde //LLP)

One of the chief concerns of President-elect Donald Trump's detractors during the presidential campaign was that the brash and notoriously loose-lipped real estate executive wouldn't be able to handle the delicate balancing act that is diplomacy. It's one thing to make wild claims domestically; it's another to inflame a fellow world power with a careless word or two. Today, a fellow world power — China — is inflamed. And Trump's controversial conversation with Taiwan's leader, which broke nearly four decades of protocol when it comes to U.S.-China relations, harks back to another controversial bit of diplomacy: Trump's first big foreign visit as the Republican nominee to Mexico. That visit erupted into a major political problem for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and by the end of it, the two sides were offering different versions of what had happened. Similarly, Trump and Taiwan seem to be at-odds about precisely what just occurred. Back in August, Trump claimed after a meeting with Peña Nieto that the they hadn't discussed Trump's plan to somehow force Mexico to pay for his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Peña Nieto and his staff quickly differed with that account, saying he had told Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall. A week later, Trump doubled down on his version of events and seemed to suggest Peña Nieto wasn't being truthful, telling ABC News: “He didn’t say that. He tweeted that long after the meeting was over. He didn't say that.” Much as with Mexico, Trump and Taiwan are now apparently differing about precisely what their call entailed. China considers Taiwan a province, and the United States has pursued a “One China” policy since the 1970s. To that end, the leaders of the United States and Taiwan haven't spoken, that we know of, in decades, given such a dialogue generally symbolizes government recognition. After news broke of the call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and the backlash began, Trump explained that it was Taiwan who initiated the conversation, and he downplayed it as a “congratulatory call.” But a spokesman in the Taiwanese president's office clarified to Reuters that the call was agreed to beforehand. “Of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact,” spokesman Alex Huang said in response to Trump's tweet. Taiwan's government also said the two sides discussed “strengthening bilateral relations” and talked about their “close economic, political and security ties" -- all words likely to make China cringe and suggestive of a more in-depth conversation than just a congratulatory call. As with Mexico, we can quibble about just how at odds the two versions of events are. Perhaps Taiwan did reach out first but there was some coordination before Trump picked up the phone. And Taiwan certainly has an interest in making the call out to be a big deal. Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and potential Trump foreign policy adviser Ric Grenell said Friday night that the flap was overblown. “It was totally planned,” Grenell said. “It was a simple courtesy call. People need to calm down. The ‘One China’ policy wasn’t changed. Washington, D.C.-types need to lighten up.” But the situation raises real questions about who is advising Trump when it comes to diplomacy with Asia, as The Washington Post's Emily Rauhala wrote. It also came just a day after the New York Times reported on building concerns about Trump's handling of other calls with world leaders and his preparation level. And the stakes are considerably higher with China than with Mexico and many other countries. Even if it wasn't meant to be a big deal, it's clearly become a big deal to China. China has now lodged an official complaint with the United States over the matter, though it appears to be giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and blaming Taiwan. China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, called it a “petty” move by Tsai. “The One China principle is the foundation for healthy development of Sino-U. S. relations,” Wang said. “We don’t wish for anything to obstruct or ruin this foundation.” So the flap could just as soon blow over. But it's notable that yet another Trump diplomatic call has turned into a sort of he-said-they-said. And for those concerned that Trump doesn't have the discipline and knowledge to deal with the intricacies and very sensitive feelings involved in foreign policy and diplomacy, Trump is yet again proving their point by creating a needless headache over a “congratulatory call.”

u.s. standing defense

No runaway Executive authority---abandoning deference is worse

McTiernan 17 – Edward F. McTiernan, JD, Environmental Team Leader at Arnold & Porter LLP, “Why Reject Chevron?”, American College of Environmental Lawyers, 1-18, http://www.acoel.org/post/2017/01/18/Why-Reject-Chevron.aspx [abbreviations in brackets]

Although the logic behind Chevron has been questioned by many, including Justice Scalia, overturning Chevron as a means of restoring the [SOP] separation of powers seems like an odd way of attempting to increase the power of the people’s elected representatives and restoring accountability. After all, deference favors stakeholders who support an administrative determination (including decisions to issue a permit or adopt a less stringent emission standard). In the environmental area, where well-funded non-governmental membership organizations routinely challenge rules and permits, the benefits of Chevron to the regulated community are easy to overlook.

In any event, one of the key arguments in favor of Chevron deference is that when Congress decides to leave implementation of legislation to an executive agency, and Congress also leaves gaps or ambiguity in a statute, filling the gap or resolving the ambiguity necessarily involves policy judgments. Putting aside questions of whether Congress can ever avoid the problem by eliminating legislative gaps or ambiguity; as a general matter Chevron deference reflects a decision that such judgments are best left to the executive agency that is most steeped in the subject matter at issue. There are at least two primary reasons that courts use to explain why Chevron and its progeny leave these judgments to executive agencies - presumed expertise and greater accountability. Indeed, even taking into account the newly popular idea that the presumed expertise of experts to solve real-world problems should be continuously challenged (or at least deeply discounted), many judges may still favor deference on the theory that policy judgments are generally not for the courts precisely because they are better left to the executive branch which (unlike our independent judiciary) is, to a degree, answerable to the popular will at election time.

Replacing Chevron with de novo judicial review would very likely result in greater uncertainty as generalist judges with life-time tenure are called upon to exercise their judgments concerning policy decisions made by specialized executive agencies directed by an elected representative of the people. Moreover, environmental cases typically present mixed questions of fact and law. Courts would need time to sort out when and how to integrate de novo review of legal determinations with the substantial evidence test for formal rules and adjudications and the arbitrary and capricious standard as applied to agency guidance and informal rules. Replacing Chevron will also probably lead to more litigation (and forum shopping) as stakeholders perceive greater prospects for success.

Of course, uncertainty and litigation are not necessarily bad - if they result in improved decision-making and they help restore common-sense outcomes. However, given the inevitability that the Environmental Protection Agency will be called upon to make policy judgments when Congress intentionally leaves gaps or unintentionally creates ambiguity, predictability has benefits. This is where the new ‘accountability’ at the core of Title II of the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 seems to fall short. It is not clear how shifting the review of administrative actions from the elected executive branch to the insulated judiciary will increase predictability or accountability. Even taking into account the other parts of this legislative package (including the direction that agencies must select the lowest cost alternative and increased reliance of the administrative record), it is far from certain that this proposed legislative fix will increase the power of the people’s elected representatives or provide a net benefit to the regulated community on environmental issues.

US diplomacy doesn’t solve war

Fettweis, 11 (Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO)

It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.