The 2012 presidential election is poised to become the most expensive in American history.  President Obama has indicated that the he intends to rasie $1 billion for his reelection campaign.  This paper examines the implications that the decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing during the 2000 primary and 2008 general election will have on the future of presidential campaigns.  The passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform coupled with the decisions made by Bush and Obama to reject public financing, revolutionized American politics and contributed to the demise of public financing.

Public Financing, 1974-2008

The public financing of American presidential campaigns was inaugurated by the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.  Corrado (1997) insisted that “the most innovative aspect of the 1974 law was the creation of an optional program of public financing for presidential general election campaigns and public matching subsidies for presidential primary campaigns” (p. 32).  Public financing provided candidates with one-for-one matching subsidies for the first $250 the candidate raises from each individual contributor, and it establishes spending limits for both primary and general election campaigns (Malbin, 2009; M. Green, 2002; Samples, 2006). Malbin (2009) suggested that “in the general election the two major party nominees may receive a flat grant that came to $84.1 million in 2008” (p. 1).

According to Malbin (2009) the purpose of federal financing is threefold: allowing the underdog candidates to remain competitive; generating more competition in presidential primaries; and encouraging candidates to broaden their fundraising bases. The public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (Fleishman, 1975; Malbin, 2009).  The number of citizens donating to the presidential election fund has steady declined since the 1980s (Malbin, 2009).  In 2008 less than six percent of American taxpayers contributed to the voluntary presidential campaign fund (Malbin, 2009).  The remainder of this paper examines the impact that the decisions made by George W. Bush in the 2000 primary and Barack Obama in the 2008 general election to reject public financing, will have on the future of presidential campaigns; and the role fundraising will play in the 2012 presidential election.

Bush, Obama, and the demise of public financing

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for a presidential primary campaign.  J. Green and Corrado (2003) insisted that President Bush’s decision to reject public financing for his 2000 Republican primary campaign revolutionized American politics.  Bush (2010) posited that accepting public financing would have limited the amount of money he could spend on his primary campaign, and prevented him from winning the Republican nomination.  Public financing forced candidates to abide by spending caps and limited the amount of money they could spend on their campaigns (J. Green & Corrado, 2003; Malbin, 2009; Abramson, Aldrich, & Rhode, 2003).  Rejecting public financing allowed candidates to raise unlimited amounts of money and exponentially increase their chances of capturing their party’s nomination (J. Green & Corrado, 2003).

George W. Bush’s decision to reject public financing for the 2000 Republican primary transformed American politics.  Parti (2011) found that four years later, George W. Bush, Howard Dean, and John Kerry all rejected public financing for their primary campaigns.  What is more, in 2008, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul all rejected public financing during the primaries (Parti, 2011; J. Green & Kingsbury, 2011).  If candidates intend to compete in future presidential primaries or general election campaigns, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Ceaser, Busch, & Pitney, Jr., 2009; Parti, 2011).  Nothing has done more to transform political campaigns than the decisions made by the aforementioned candidates to reject public financing during the primaries.

History was made in 2008 when Senator Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for the general election campaign.  Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing allowed him to raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history: 742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman and Halperin, 2010).  Had Senator Obama accepted public financing, the amount of money he would have been allowed to spend on his campaign would have been capped at $84.1 million (Ceaser et al., 2009).  Ceaser et al. (2009) found that in the final week of the campaign, Obama outspent John McCain, who accepted public financing—by a colossal $100 million.  Being that Senator McCain was constrained by public financing, the amount of money he could spend on the get-out-the-vote efforts and television advertisements in key swing states was severely limited (Corrado, 2011; Ceaser et al., 2009).  As the reader can discern from the myriad statistics provided, the 2008 presidential election contributed to the demise of public financing.

Barack Obama’s ability to raise nearly $750 million during the 2008 presidential election indicates that public financing is no longer viable (Malbin, 2009; Haynes & Pitts, 2009).  If the Republican nominee intends to compete with President Obama in 2012, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Roarty, 2011).  In addition to the demise of public financing, the 2008 presidential election was symbolic in another regard: it proved that candidates will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars if they intend to win the presidency (Ceaser et al., 2009; Kenski, Hardy, & Jamieson, 2010; Edwards & Wayne, 2010).  The profound emphasis placed on fundraising runs counter to the intentions of the Federal Elections Campaign Finance Act of 1971: to limit the influence of money in politics (Magleby, 2010; Boatright, 2009).  It is evident from Barack Obama’s near-landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, that fundraising will be of paramount importance in future presidential elections.

Fundraising and Public Financing in the 2012 Presidential Election

As noted in the introduction, the 2012 presidential election is poised to be the most expensive in American history.  Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he intends to raise and spend in excess of $1 billion, on his reelection campaign (Allen, 2011; Cillizza, 2011; Kavangh, 2010).  According to Open Secrets (2011), Barack Obama has already raised $150 million for his 2012 presidential campaign.  In 2008, Barack Obama raised more money than any other candidate in presidential history: $742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman & Halperin, 2010).  Of that total, nearly $600 million came from contributions by individuals (Corrado, 2011; Magleby, 2010; Sabato, 2010).

If Barack Obama is able to raise $1 billion in 2012, it will be difficult for the Republican candidate to compete in pivotal swing states.  As aforementioned, in 2008, Barack Obama outspent John McCain in key swing states by $100 million (Boatright, 2009; Schier & Box-Steffensmeier, 2009).  If the Republican nominee intends to compete with Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they place a profound emphasis on fundraising.

Roarty (2011) posited that if the Republican nominee intends to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they reject public financing.  By accepting public financing in 2008, the amount of money John McCain could spend in the general election was capped at $84.1 million (Magleby, 2010; Malbin, 2008; Parti, 2011).  What is more, Ceaser et al (2009) found that by accepting public financing, McCain was outspent in key swing states (Indiana, 7-1; Ohio, 2-1; North Carolina, 3-2; and Virginia, 4-1).  By rejecting public financing, the GOP nominee will be able to raise an unlimited amount of money, and compete with President Obama in each of the aforementioned states.

Perhaps the most important fundraising strategy for the Republican nominee to employ is raising money in small increments.  According to Rove (2010), both the Bush and Obama campaigns received copious amounts of money from small donors.  Research by Malbin (2008) found that Barack Obama raised $452 million in donations of $200 or less.  Four years earlier, George W. Bush raised $256 million from contributions of $200 or less (Ceaser & Busch, 2005; Coffey & Green, 2007; Malbin, 2008).  Online fundraising is paramount in American presidential campaigns (Johnson, 2007; Winograd & Hais, 2008).  Gingrich (2010) found that in order to defeat President Obama in 2012, the Republican nominee must develop an online fundraising presence, and be able to raise large sums of money in small increments.

By adhering to the three pronged fundraising strategy outlined in this section, the Republican nominee will be able to compete with Barack Obama, and increase their chances of winning the presidency. As the reader can discern from the myriad information provided, Barack Obama’s ability to raise $750 million during the 2008 presidential election, contributed to the demise of public financing.  It appears certain that all future presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, will eschew public financing.  In order to prevail in contemporary presidential campaigns, candidates must raise copious amounts of money.

Concluding Remarks

The decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing, contributed to its demise.  It is evident fro, this paper that money is the driving force behind political campaigns and American public policy.  The findings of this paper, it is hoped, have provided valuable new insights into the influence of money in politics.  Furthermore, the author sought to provide an extensive analysis of fundraising in the 2012 presidential election.  The 2012 presidential election will be the most expensive in American history.  In order to compete with Barack Obama, conservatives will have to rally behind a candidate, and place a profound emphasis on fundraising.  An anemic fundraising campaign by conservatives will guarantee an Obama victory in 2012.

References

Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H., & D.W. Rohde. (2003). Change and continuity in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.

Allen, M. (2011, August 25). Obama 2012 launches project vote. Politico. Retrieved from             http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

Armstrong, J., & Moulitsas, M. (2006). Crashing the gate: Netroots, grassroots, and the rise of  people-powered politics. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Boatright, R.G.(2009). Campaign finance in the 2008 election. In Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., & Schier, S. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 137-161). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bush, G.W. (2010). Decision points. New York: NY, Crown Publishing.

Ceaser, J.W., & Busch, A.E. (2005). Red over blue: The 2004 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ceaser, J.W., Busch, A.E., & Pitney, J.J., Jr. (2009). Epic journey: The 2008 elections and  American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Cillizza, C. (2010, December 12). Obama’s reelection campaign could hit billion-dollar mark. The Washington Post. Retrieved from  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

Coffey, D.J., & Green, J.C. (2007). The state of parties: Change and continuity in 2004. The state of parties: The changing role of contemporary American politics (5^th ed.), (pp. 1-15).   Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Corrado, A. (1997). Money and politics: A history of campaign finance law. In Corrado, A., Mann, T.E., Ortiz, D.R., Potter, T., & Sorauf, F.J. (Eds.), The new campaign finance sourcebook (pp. 27-60). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.

_________ . (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential election. In Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A.   (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 127-166). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute     Press.

Edwards, III, G.C., & Wayne, S. (2010). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making (8^th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Fleishman, J.L. (1975). The 1974 Federal Elections Campaign Act Amendments: The        shortcomings of good intentions. Duke Law Journal, (4), 851-899. Retrieved from  http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/pdfplus/1372084.pdf?acceptTC=true

Gingrich, N. (2010). To save America: Stopping Obama’s secular-socialist machine. Washington, D.C: Regnery.

Green, J.C., & Corrado, A. (2003). The impact of BCRA on campaign finance.  In Malbin, M.J.   (Ed.), Life after reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act meets politics (pp.      175-199). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Green, J.C., & Kingsbury, D. (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. In   Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A. (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 86-127).  Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.

Green, M. (2002). Selling out: How big corporate money buys elections, rams through legislation, betrays our democracy. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Haynes, A., & Pitts, B. (2009). Making an impression: New media in the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. PS: Political Science and Politics 42(1), 53-58. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/224982207/fulltextPDF/131DB1B          049D794D9313/13?accountid=11243

Heilemann, J., & Halperin, M. (2010). Game change: Obama, the Clintons, McCain and Palin,                 and the race of a lifetime. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Johnson, D.W. (2007). No place for amateurs: How political consultants are reshaping American democracy (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kavangh, T. (2010, December 13). Obama’s 2012 campaign fundraising could top $1 billion. Politics Daily. Retrieved from

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/obamas-2012-campaign-fundraising-could-top-  1-billion/

Kenski, K., Hardy, B.W., & Jamieson, K.H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Magleby, D.B. (2010). The change election: Money, mobilization, and persuasion in the 2008 federal elections. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Malbin, M. (2008, November 24). Reality check: Obama raised about the same percentage from   small donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/press/PReleases/08-11-24/Reality_Check_-            _Obama_Small_Donors.aspx

________. (2009, April 5). Small donors, large donors and the internet: The case for public financing after Obama. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf

Open Secrets (2011). 2012 presidential candidate fundraising summary. Retrieved from              http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php

Parti, T. (2011, August 5). Will 2012 be the end of the presidential public financing system? Retrieved from

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/08/the-end-of-presidential-public-financing.html

Roarty, A. (2011, April 21). Campaign finance will go largely unregulated in 2012. National Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/872165804/fulltext/131DB288BA  E7A498734/6?accountid=11243

Rove, K. (2008, December 3). McCain could not compete with Obama’s money. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html

_______. (2010). Courage and consequence: My life as a conservative in the fight. New York, NY: Threshold Editions.

Sabato, L.J. (2010). The year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White House. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman.

Samples, J. (2006). The fallacy of campaign finance reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago  Press.

Schier, S.E., and Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (2009). The general election campaign. In Schier, S.E., & Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 55-79).  Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Semiatin, R.J. (2008). Voter mobilization—into the future.  In Semiatin, R.J. (Ed.), Campaigns    on the cutting edge (85-103). Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.

Trent, J.S., & Friedenberg, R.V. (2007). Political campaign communication: Principles and  practices (6^th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Vargas, J.A. (2008, November 20). Obama raised half a billion online. The Washington Post. Retrieved from                  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html

Walensky, R. (2007, November 6). Ron Paul sets online fundraising record with $4.2 million in    one day.  Retrieved from

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308404,00.html

Winograd, M., & Hais, M.D. (2008). Millennial makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the future of      American politics. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press.

Case Background, Status, and Relevance:

On August 28, 2009, the U.S. counterintelligence world savored a victory as Belgian arms trafficker Jacques Monsieur was taken into custody after stepping off his plane in a New York airport. Monsieur, who has been smuggling military parts and weaponry for Iran since the early 1980s, was arrested by federal agents in August for conspiring to illegally export F-5 Fighter jet engines and spare parts from the United States to Iran. The six count indictment was the result of a seven month joint-investigation by eight separate agencies. The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), took the lead.On August 27, 2009, a United States Grand Jury from the Southeast District of Alabama indicted Monsieur and his co-conspirator, Dara Fatouhi,with counts of conspiracy, money laundering, smuggling and violations of both the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). If convicted, both men could serve a maximum of 60 years in prison. The arrest of Jacques Monsieur will not only undermine Iran’s ability to maintain its air force and equip its armed forces, it may also provide the United States with invaluable intelligence on the strength and scope of the Iranian military complex at a time when it is most needed.

Download Pax Americana Institute’s FACT SHEET on Illegal Immigration and the Crisis on the Border

dd

PAI has compiled a fast facts sheet on illegal immigration that bullet points:

• American Death tolls
• Mexican Death tolls
• Number of U.S. & Mexican Troops on the Border
• “The Wall”
• Arizona S.B. 1070
• U.S. v Arizona (Federal Law Suit)

The PAIndex examines, qualitatively and quantitatively, the Pax Americana’s five key components:  U.S. freedom, innovation, military power, economic prowess and charity.  All five measures adequately reflect the historical and contemporary goals of American foreign policy and will allow for monthly reassessments to track the strength of the Pax Americana.

The Pax Americana Index is slotted for release on our homepage on Monday, 14 June 2010.

This case study examines the history of the Indonesian terrorist network al-Jemaah al-Islamiyah (JI) and its most deadly and violent splinter cell Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad, particularly through the lens of the 17 July 2009 terrorist bombings of the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta.  Focus is given the history of both organizations, their leadership, strategies and tactics, countermeasures employed by Indonesian terrorism authorities and lessons learned from a decade of combating radical Islamists.

dd

Download:  CASE STUDY – The July 2009 JW Marriot & Ritz-Carlton Bombings in Jakarta

The first in a new series of Institute easy-to-reads will be “10 Things Every Citizen Should Know About…The U.S. Constitution.” Available in print and on Amazon.com/books in the Fall of 2010.  Other PAI Publications.

All proceeds support the institute’s student internship program.

d

d

The Political Impact of Iran’s Youth
And the Future of the Iranian Democracy

Major J. Prokopowicz, United States Army;
Visiting Research Fellow, Pax Americana Institute.

The views and opinions expressed in this essay are solely those of Major Prokopowicz; they do not reflect, nor are they intended to reflect, those of the US Government or US Armed Forces.

“It strikes me often while I am in Iran that were [American] Christian Evangelicals to take a tour of Iran toady, they might find the model for an ideal society they seek in America. Replace Allah with God, Mohammad with Jesus, keep the same public and private notions of chastity, sin, salvation, and God’s will, and a Christian Republic is born.” -Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami

Revolutionary Diffusion on the Youth

Youth movement power in Iran is certainly not a new concept. In the 1970s, an expansive, international youth student network facilitated Ayatollah Rullohah Khomeini’s revolution. Returning from studying abroad, Iranian students smuggled letters, speech transcripts, and lessons derived from Khomeini and his inner circle. This enabled Khomeini’s followers to seize the underground information environment, fostering his return from exile and the founding of the Shia Islamic Republic based on Khomeini’s velayat-e fiqih (rule of the jurisprudent) philosophy.5 During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini’s government sponsored a nationwide procreation initiative intended to fill gaps left by Iran’s “martyred” soldiers.6 As planned, the procreation initiative rendered a large baby boom. Public education and national literacy campaigns insured the “Children of the Revolution” possessed skills and knowledge needed to enhance Iran’s collective potential.7 Not planned was accompanying dissention from within the baby boom. Quite simply, the regime has been unsuccessful in diffusing revolutionary ideas onto its youth. This is due to the youth holding a second-hand view of the Iranian Revolution, competition with technology, and the declining interest in religion.

Revolution: A Second-hand Concept. In perhaps a cruel ironic twist, a government founded in cooperation with revolutionary students now contends with its own student dissent. Much like the Shah in the 1970s, the Islamic Republic significantly controls multiple aspects of the nation, leaving youth angry or disenfranchised. This control, along with problematic political and economic situations, diminishes the relationship between the regime and the Iranian youth, leaving only religion and nationalism as nominally held commonalities.8

Being calculating and rational, the regime is not oblivious to the stirring emotions of its young populace.9 Perhaps out of pragmatic realization, or mirror imaging to its own revolutionary era, the regime grants minor, often tacit allowances in dispensation of social liberties.10 Still, the government is unsuccessful in connecting with its youth, demonstrated by occasional suppression and imprisonment of dissidents.11

Being concentrated enclaves of young people, universities remain the principle, physical friction points for regime-youth relations.12 These young adults, having lived their lives under the firm grip and prying eyes of the regime, develop clever methods to circumvent and countermand the government’s societal control. From a political perspective, students seek more pluralism from Iran’s society. Their intent is not to change the regime. Rather, students seek more pluralism within the regime’s confines, a concept long suppressed by constitutional machinations.13 Political dissent, along with economic decline, instigated significant campus political mobilization from the educated Iranian student body, prompting the government to ban university student elections.14

From a cultural viewpoint, Iranian students and young people develop avenues for typical student behavior, particularly concerning western-style music and entertainment. Young Iranians audaciously defy state dress codes in public, often in sight of civil authorities.15 These include T-shirts and jeans for men, and multi-colored, strategically placed hijabs (head scarves) for women.16 In the religious city of Qom, authorities suppress, or at the least frown upon, young clerical students listening to Iranian pop music. In order to bypass possible censors, students gently rephrase “music” to “chanting,” falsely attributing religious or meditation connotations.17 Also, holding parties for the sake of partying is also prohibited. While it is not uncommon for teens and twenty-somethings to assemble in a social setting, they must mask it with religious overtones. However, late-night parties are common in Iran, ranging from elaborate graduation or holiday parties of the wealthy to underground gatherings, drag racing, and activities evoking images from the film “American Graffiti.”18 Dancing, alcohol consumption, promiscuity, and drug use are known to occur at some parties, corresponding to activities of American counterparts.19

Dissidence also resides among university faculties, enough to inspire unconventional approaches in teaching forbidden subjects. In her memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Azar Nafisi describes her efforts to teach banned, foreign authors (such as Hemingway and Nabokov) to a select group of female students.20 Nafisi challenges the regime in two ways: through providing censored material to the youth, and by empowering young women in a subversive “feminist” manner. Even though Iranian women carry more rights than other Muslim countries, they are still regarded as second-class citizens, and legally hold the rights of half a man.21 Nafisi is one of many Iranians using unconventional methods to communicate marginalized ideas to the youth. However, new forms of subversion pushed the regime’s information control to the brink.

Competing With Technology. Although intended to empower the Islamic Republic, state-sponsored education and literacy campaigns provided Iranian youth with skills for innovative dissent. There is little doubt that computer technology is the most significant innovation affecting Iran’s youth. The facts testify on the impact: seventy-three percent of youth have access to satellite television; and Iran boasts the Middle East’s highest proportion of internet users (over thirty-six percent).22 Further, with Farsi now the third most popular language on the Internet,23 and with cellular phones and text messaging rampant, the regime now must compete with rhetoric in the ever-expanding cyberspace, particularly against an estimated one hundred thousand “blogs,” or Internet journals.24
It’s not the quantity of the blogs that irks the regime, rather, their content. In her excellent book, We Are Iran, Nasrin Alavi presents a cross-section of the Iranian “blogosphere,” covering everything including pop-culture, politics, religion, sex, dating, and numerous other topics of young-minded interest. In her own words, Alavi explains:

“One of the major attractions of blogging in Iran is that it enables young people to bypass many of the strict social codes imposed on them by the theocratic regime. The Internet makes it easy to socialize, flirt, tell irreverent jokes, arrange dates and keep in touch. Popular young bloggers…offer us a snapshot of the underground landscape of their lives.”25

Naturally, politics dominates numerous blogs, and as Alavi contends, this medium is virtually no holds barred. Some cast their leadership in unflattering caricatures (comparisons to pigs and “pimps” are not uncommon).26 Some express anger against the enforcement of regime policies, and others wax extensively on popular culture.27 Most significant for Iran’s political landscape is blogs calling for more representation and pluralism in the government. For bloggers, there seems to be a common thread: hatred of everything the government loves and love for everything the government hates.28

A major internet-based subversion lies within Iranian feminism. In 1979, as part of initiatives to purify Iran, Khomeini decreed that all women must cover with a hijab (veil).29 While enforcement of this measure vacillated over the past thirty years, Alavi reveals that blogging enables women to virtually “unveil,” and express themselves freely, creating a possible knock-on effect.30 As previously mentioned, Iran does not afford women equal legal rights as men. However, women have equal voice on the Internet, and are not afraid to express their thoughts on dating, attire, and legal standing. Having been marginalized in other aspects of society, Iranian women proved adaptable, and blogs effectively serve as a virtual “rally point.”31

So how does the regime compete? So far the regime maintains efforts to censor and event attempts to substitute with blogs of its own. The government claims the successful – often harsh – imprisonment of many bloggers, and boasts the filtering of more than ten million websites.32 The regime also fights back, sponsoring, encouraging, an even rewarding bloggers who uphold regime-friendly “Islamic values.”33 Yet given the immense number of blog sites (some originating from expatriates),34 censorship and substitution yields the same effect as a children’s “Whack-A-Mole” game; when one mole gets hit, another pops up elsewhere. Despite attempts to censor, blogging remains a key outlet of expression, and its increase is an indicator of anger fomenting in this crucial demographic.

Secularization and Stratification

In 1979, Ayatollah Rullohah Khomeini’s vision of a utopian, Islamic Republic ostensibly came true. While his goal was the creation of a society with high Islamic morality and ethics, harsh application of his religious and political ideals spurred resentment from succeeding generations.35 While rhetoric in 1789-France expressed that revolutions devour their children. In Iran, resulting popular secularization and separation proves the reverse is true: the children are devouring the revolution.36

Secularization: Losing their Religion. Prominent Islamic scholar and Shia cleric Hadi Ghabel, reflecting on 25 years of rule by Iranian clergy, claims the revolution “has not made Islam stronger, but it has brought about a decline in the position of the clergy and religion in society.”37 The source of this decline originates in Iran’s paradoxical administration of government. Ironically, in an attempt to instill religion in society, transformations of the political system introduced a secularization of Islam intended to account for issues beyond Islamic doctrine.38 After trickling down to the populace, these results create a hybrid attitude of state religion. Many claim to be “practicing Muslims,” but their actions and attitudes suggest otherwise.39

As youth continue to balance modernity with traditional Islamic values, social and societal changes reveal evidence of attitude shifts. First, women are waiting longer for marriage, as the average age of newly married women spiked to 27.9 years (up from 23 years in 1997).40 This indicates more women are independent-minded and serve more in the workforce. Also, waiting for marriage means less children. After a decade of state-encouraged reproduction, Iran’s under-30 demographic apparently does not want as many children. Focusing on 1986 to 2001, the annual Iranian birth rate plummeted from 3.2 percent to 1.2 percent.41 The current 2009 estimate now stands at 1.6 percent.42 Further, while the Islamic Republic boasts a 98% Muslim practice rate,43 fewer than 3% of youth regularly attend Friday prayers.44 Fewer males seek to align themselves with a Marja’ taqlid (“source of imitation”), a Shia practice in which followers recognize a specific cleric for mentorship and guidance.45 Most are likely encouraged by exposure to western-ideas and thought, and these trends suggest the Islamic Republic’s evolution into a much different entity, with religion slowly receding to the background. Politically, secularization encourages youth to seek ownership of their religion and contest restrictions established by the theocracy. While aforementioned data indicates a secular transition, Iranian youth are not secular; religion remains a powerful driving force in all societal demographics.46 Yet, as Jared Cohen explains, hard-line clerics and politicians tainted religion by making it an extension of policy, prompting youth to seek private salvation.47 Clearly rigid, clerical application of religion creates an unintended, secular side effect. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof expressed, “In much of the world, young Muslims are increasingly religious, but compulsive Islam has soured some Iranians on religion.”48

Stratification: Picking Sides. A demographic of over forty million people features diverse opinions and factions, usually deriving from role or background. Examining varied opposition groups, along with regime loyalists, reveals distinct and nuanced differences, all significant and vital in shaping a generation’s rise to power in Iranian society.

The Opposition. While labor unions, women’s rights groups, and intellectuals all contribute to an immense opposition, student organizations potentially hold the greatest force against the regime.49 In 1979, roughly 160,000 students attended public universities. In 2006, that number ballooned to over two million, including a significant increase in female enrollment. This provides a vast and, regenerating recruitment pool for student associations, propagating issues both on and off campuses.50 Ali Afshari and H. Graham Underwood effectively stratify these associations, illustrating four types that test the limits of the regime’s authority. The first types are arts associations, that generally seek to entertain the student body via movies, music, and performances. With frequent exhibits of subversive thought, the regime subjects these associations to extreme censorship – which drastically increased under President Mahmood Ahmedinejad in 2005.51

Student publications comprise Afshari’s and Underwood’s second group, which experienced significant growth during President Mohammed Khatami’s administration from 1997 to 2005. Espousing informed and anti-regime rhetoric, these groups also felt the pressure of Ahmedinejad’s Prokopowicz Pax Americana Institute 8
censorship efforts, either through reduced funding or outright prohibition.52 The third group is student trade unions, which are similar to student councils and governments in the West. These also experienced tremendous expansion during Khatami’s administration, as larger student bodies led to increased student representation. Politicized debates and opposition to policy led to faculty purges. Student suspensions also increased under President Ahmedinejad, ultimately leading to the aforementioned ban on student elections. 53

Afshari’s and Underwood’s final group comprises of political organizations. Dating back to the 1930s, the authors contend that these groups are not simply part of a “youth culture,” but are a main organizational pillar in Iranian civil society.54 They maintain that half of the political groups are democratic in nature, with pro-regime, socialist-communist, and Islamic groups holding their own minority blocs.55 Mostly based in and around campuses in Tehran, pro-democratic groups seek increased pluralism, liberal thought, human rights, and permanent separation of religious authority and government. Notably, pro-democratic groups seek radical reform and constitutional change through peaceful means.56 Since the majority of these groups are unofficial and operate underground, they receive little official support.57

The Loyalists. Understanding that the majority of Iran’s youth is decidedly anti-regime, a commonly held western misconception comes from images of youth chanting “Death to America” on CNN.58 These images are no accident, as the regime’s information ministry stages demonstrations in order to convey a unified, mobilized stance against the West. In reality, these “loyalists” are more loyal to enhancing their status in the eyes of the regime, and, as Jared Cohen explains, they come from five echelons of society.59 The first pool of loyalists comes from families of slain soldiers from the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. As previously discussed, the regime went through great measures to heal demographic fissures caused by this conflict, one of which included the care, education and employment of left-behind children. Through this program, the regime indoctrinates this select group from early age and establishes a ready stream of support.60

The next echelon derives from the fringes of society. In 2005 Mahmood Ahmedinejad, while not intending irony, ran for President as a regime-sponsored populist candidate. Using rhetoric identical to Josef Goebbels, Ahmedinejad garnered significant support by blaming western society for Iran’s woes, propelling him to the presidency in August of that year.61 The third come from true believers, the youth who internalize the regime’s religious governmental philosophy. These are the <3 percent who actually attend Friday prayers and train for clerical duties to fulfill their personal and professional ambitions. The fourth group is what Cohen calls the “innate believers,” or families of the ruling elite. Nested in privilege and position, these youth consider themselves unofficial heirs to their fathers’ leadership, and hold no reservation for their support of the regime.62 Finally, the last group comes from Iran’s military and security forces. Whether serving in the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or as part of the Basij63 (state volunteer militia), these youth enjoy the status and prestige that elude others as civilians.64 While most youth eschew military service, those who do serve are desperate and resolved to perform the government’s “dirty work” in exchange for status.65

Though a distinct minority, loyalists do provide a strong constituency for the regime. The regime’s investment in loyalist fostering and training indicates their awareness of a growing youthful dissent. Understanding the opposition, the regime hopes to have just enough followers to sustain their government and uphold their interpretation of Islamic values.

Implications of Youth

As Iran’s post-revolutionary generation matures, questions arise about its role in Iran’s future. As a societal configuration, Iran ironically resembles the United States more than any other Middle Eastern state, and this rising generation, armed with western influence, will significantly change Iran’s national landscape. However, before western leaders begin pining for Iranian democracy, all must consider Iran’s failed democratic attempts, collective desired changes, and strong sense of nationalism.

Democracy and Foreign Intervention. Historical attempts at true Iranian democratic pluralism are testimonies of futility, due largely to external interference. The initial significant attempt came in 1906, in response to intense popular pressure, the ruling Qajar monarchy granted constitutional reform, and allowed the creation of a national parliament (Majles).66 However, Imperial Russia, motivated by oil procurement, facilitated the return of the Qajar monarchy just two years later, effectively limiting Majles legitimacy.67

Another example of failed pluralism came with the removal of nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953. Popularly elected in 1951, Mossadeq sought to nationalize Iran’s oil industry, much to the disappointment of Great Britain and the United States. Britain promptly cut Iran out of the global oil market, causing internal economic collapse. Further, the United States inflated the threat of Soviet communist expansion, encouraging the clergy to move from Mossadeq’s camp.68 Reza Shah Pahlavi and the military, bolstered by the United States, presented a realistic alternative that appealed to the public more than Mossadeq’s idealism.69 The result was a military coup sponsored by the western Allies, placing the Shah and his cohorts in full power of the regime.70 One year later, the Shah’s government signed a new agreement with western oil companies, setting the stage for a booming petro-economy.71
Both of these examples provide a vital lesson. They remain prevalent in contemporary Iranian discourse; to some, these events seem to have only occurred yesterday – Mossadeq is an icon to numerous youthful bloggers.72 Both involve nascent democratic operations upended by foreign intervention, usually in the interest of profit and oil. Despite ostensible altruism, Iranians will likely view any foreign democratization efforts with extreme suspicion.

The Constitution Begs to Differ. From 1997 to 2005, Iran experienced a sort-of -reformation under President Mohammad Khatami. Under his tenure, laws on public behavior relaxed, and a reversal of isolationist foreign policy brought business and tourism to the Islamic republic.73 In two elections, Khatami won over 70 percent of the vote, with members from most societal factions -including the military- lending their support.74 Khatami even once had a United States President sit in an audience – Bill Clinton at the UN – and was the champion of the rising youth population.75

So what happened? Members of Khatami’s base (left-leaning and liberal Iranians) were greatly disappointed by the pace of his reforms, and his unwillingness to take on hard-liners.76 Students expected his support after regime elements suppressed demonstrators in July 1999, but instead, Khatami acquiesced to prevent more violence.77 After announcing retirement without endorsing a possible successor, political opponents quickly mobilized. Ahmedinejad’s populist campaign took great advantage by focusing on Iran’s diminished economic situation.78

In actuality, Khatami and his reforms held little chance for success due to strict constitutional frameworks. Ultimate power rests with the Guardianship Council, which selects candidates for office, holds absolute veto power, and operates under the charge of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Husseini Khameni.79 Further, the conservative Guardianship Council staged a sort of “parliamentary coup,” sought to limit parliamentary power by any possible means.80 They demonstrated their power by disqualifying numerous reformist parliamentary candidates, to the wholesale rejection of multiple progressive legislative acts.81 Witnessing Khatami’s inability to establish any real genuine reform left youth disenfranchised.

What do the youth want, and what should the West do? With such tight control by the conservative leadership, the sizable youth majority stands a de facto opposition.82 As expressed earlier, youth seek more pluralism, and the most fervent democracy advocates seek representation without “prefixes or suffixes.”83 While bloggers reveal a yearning for more pluralism and ease of restrictions, there are two key areas where the youth and regime hold common ground.

First is an aversion of violence. The young generation still feels the effects of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, with monuments and commemorative infrastructure dominating the urban landscape.84 American combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as effective propaganda tools for the government, and most Iranians would rather have the regime stay in power than fight a war.85 Nationalism runs strong within Iranian youth, and most Iranians feel entitled to nuclear weapons as a means of defense and regional hegemony.86 As Cohen remarks:

“The nuclear issue transcends attitudes of both regime and youth, as both believe Iran has the right to master this key technology.”87
This support goes only so far, as nuclear weapons would only empower the regime. Most youth would gladly suppress nuclear aspiration in exchange for the regime’s abdication.88 Still, the regime will likely exploit this shared view, and use it to mobilize support for nuclear weapons. Any unity will reaffirm the regime’s leadership, and obtaining these weapons guarantees more power.
The second key area revolves around external influence. Iran witnessed several attempts of democracy thwarted by external powers, and all generations keep these events at their collective memory’s forefront. Jared Cohen suggests the Iranian youth inclination toward technology and western culture as an access point for information and propaganda campaigns.89 He supports this argument on the basis that technology can bypass the regime and police apparatus, and encourage youth-to-youth networking.90 Yet Cohen, along with Alavi, and more agree on at least one key issue: the youth of Iran will undoubtedly stand with its regime against foreign aggressors.91

Therefore, the best recommendation for the West is to tread lightly, and maintain close watch. Any overt notion of interference would likely embolden the oppressive regime, not weaken it. Technology and information already provided Iran’s youth with the most significant tools needed to increase pluralism. There is no need to push any western-sponsored democratic reform. One day, members of the current regime will be gone. While they train their handpicked successors, they now they face significant opposition. Hopefully, western nations have the wherewithal for restraint, and the ability to assist upon genuine invitation.

Conclusion

As of this writing, the Obama administration expressed interest in opening serious negotiation with Iran, going so far as to suggest removing uranium enrichment as a precondition.92 While time will tell on the state of United States-Iranian relations, the Iranian youth will likely welcome this détente, and hopefully benefit from improved relations with the West. What we understand is that the Iranian youth population is growing up, and growing more eager to establish itself. After examining the Iranian Revolution’s effect on the young, and highlighting demographic characteristics of the youth, we understand that Iran’s under-30 crowd holds significant implications for their nation’s future. Iran’s youth is indeed a force to be reckoned with. They want a voice, and they seek change. Yet, they want all of this on their own terms. While Pete Townshend and The Who probably did not have Iran’s youth on their mind, their hit song hints like a foreshadowing anthem. Iran’s younger generations do have their own ambitions, and would very much like to see suppressive forces fade away.

Click here to view Pdf

References

Abbot, Kenrick. 1995. “Ayaullah Khumayni’s Quest for a Just Society.” Orient, 36(2): 251-267
Afshari, Ali, and Underwood, H. Graham. 2007. “The Student Movement’s Struggle.” Journal of Democracy. 18(4): 80-94.
Alavi, Nasrin. 2006. We Are Iran. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press.
Alavi, Nasrin. 2007. “The Fourth Generation.” The New Internationalist. March – Creation date. Last accessed: 4 March 2009. <http://www.newint.org/features/2007/03/01/internet/>.
Baer, Robert. 2008. The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower. New York: Crown Publishers.
Cohen, Jared. 2006. “Iran’s Young Opposition: Youth in Post-Revolutionary Iran.” SAIS Review, 21(2): 3-16.
CIA. 2009. CIA World Factbook. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html>. 23 Apr.-Creation Date.
Economist. 2009. “Children of the Revolution: Iran’s young people have mixed feelings about the country’s 30-year old revolution.” The Economist. 9 Feb.- Creation Date. Last accessed: 4 March 2009. <http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13088969>.
Gheissari, Ali, and Nasr, Vali. 2006. Democracy In Iran: History and the Quest For Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.
Labott, Elise. 2009. “Obama Administration Opens Door for Iran.” 15 Apr-creation date. Last accessed: 6 May. <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/obama.iran/index.html>.
Khosrokhavar, Farhad. 2007. “The New Religiosity in Iran.” Social Compass. 54(3): 453-463.
Prokopowicz Pax Americana Institute 15
Majd, Hooman. 2008. The Ayatollah Begs To Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. New York: Doubleday Publishing Group.
Mitropolitski, Simeon. 2005. “Iran: Revolution Devoured by its Children.” International Real Estate Digest. 8 Jan – Creation date. Last accessed: 4 March 2009. <http://www.ired.com/news/mkt/iranrev.htm>.
Moaveni, Azadeh. 2005. “Fast Times in Iran.” Time (South Pacific Edition). 13 June: 32-36.
Molavi, Afshin and Sadjadpour, Karim. “Change Up.” The New Republic 10 November: 12-14.
Nafisi, Azar. 2005. Reading Lolita in Iran: A Memoir in Books. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Nasr, Vali. 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will shape the Future. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Pollack, Kenneth M. 2005. The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. New York: Random House Trade Paperback.
Parsi, Trita. 2007. Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Roy, Oliver. 2008. The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East. New York: Columbia University Press.
Samii, A. William. 2004. “Dissent in Iranian Elections.” Middle East Journal, 58(3): 403-423
Samii, A. William. 2005. “Iran: Youth Movement Has Untapped Potential.” 15 Apr.- creation date. Last Accessed: 4 Mar. 2009. <http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13088969>.
Townshend, Pete. 1965. My Generation. London: Decca Records.

By Drew Davis, Executive Director, Pax Americana Institute

Yemen has served as a safe-haven for Al Qa’ida Arabian Peninsula since 2001. As U.S. and Coalition Forces continue to drive insurgents out of Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorists are seeking refuge in the ungoverned, mountainous swaths of northwestern and eastern Yemen. The 30,000-strong U.S. troop surge will only expedite the transition of terrorists to places like Somalia, North Africa, and Yemen unless the United States and Yemen direct more resources to these dark corners. This threat assessment is a concise overview of the threats posed to the U.S. and U.S. interests in the region by terrorists in Yemen.
Drew Davis is the Executive Director of the Pax Americana Institute. He received an AB in World Religious Studies and Politics & Government with a minor in National Security Studies from Ripon College and an MA in International Affairs and National Security from the George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.

By Drew Davis, Executive Director, Pax Americana Institute

The intersection of religion and politics has fascinated people for centuries. In modern day, it seems to be an ever-constant concern of many. The enormity of such an issue, however, means that unless a focused and particular approach is implemented when examining it, only the surface of the topic will be scratched. Therefore, in order to fully understand the relationship of these two realms of life, the intersection of the two must be parcelled into manageable pieces and studied thoroughly. Eventually, and only, through such a process, will the most accurate understanding of the topic, and realisation of its complexity, become a reality. This article offers a parcel of the U.S. Catholic Church‟s influences and impacts on U.S. foreign and national security policy. It is a stepping-stone for moving toward a deeper understanding of such a glorious relationship.

Drew Davis is the Executive Director of the Pax Americana Institute. He holds an AB in Politics & Government, World Religious Studies and National Security and an MA in International Affairs and National Security. Director Davis is a devout Roman Catholic with a sound understanding of the Church and Catechism.