By Sean Romo
‘Change’ has been a term bandied about often during the lead-up to the November presidential election. For Barak Obama, ‘change’ appears to mean having slightly different ideas from those touted in the Republican Party. For John McCain, the term seems to refer to the fact that he is physically not the same person as President Bush, but to look at his actions during the last several years, one might think he was the decider’s mental twin. But the ‘change’ that America really needs goes beyond merely picking between two slightly different candidates for president. With only five days left before the election, and many people having already decided whom to vote for, this and subsequent essays will focus on the broader, more important changes that the United States desperately needs. Some of these topics are presented below, though in no particular order.
To start with, the United States needs to change the way the media (newspapers, both print and online, television news programs and partisan shows ) report on the various elections and political announcements and scandals. Many Americans do not have time to fully research candidates, incumbent politicians or contentious issues. As a result, a good percentage of people turn to the media to, as a friend of mine so eloquently put it, “get the cliff notes version.” Unfortunately, the media’s failure to report the news in a ‘fair and balanced’ way is highlighted by the general lack of knowledge about candidates and issues that the public has. In a campaign as supposedly well-covered as this one, how is it that there are still people out there who think Barak Obama is a Muslim? A recent poll by the University of Texas shows that in that state alone, 23 percent of voters believe Senator Obama practices Islam, while nationwide five to ten percent of voters believe the falsehood. The fact that viewers of ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,’ a mockery of television news shows, “know more about politics, participate more in politics, and tune into news and public affairs more than the average American,” something has clearly gone awry. ‘The Daily Show’ itself points out the rampant hypocrisy inherent in both politics and the media, which is something one would hope that the media would do themselves. Considering their role is to inform the public, you would think that pointing out when politicians doubletalk and lie to the American people would be a high priority. The sad truth, however, is that often the media practices ‘doublethink,’ ignoring the various lies and politically motivated reversals of opinion put forth by many hopeful electees. Of course, not every talk show or interviewer does this, but the media as a whole seems to follow this pattern.
On the issue of ‘fair and balance’ reporting of elections, a glaring lacuna (Latin for gap or missing item) in the media’s coverage has been the lack of attention given to third parties and their candidates. These candidates are often marginalized, to the point that not only are they not invited to the major debates, but that debates between third party candidates are not even televised live on any channel. On October 30th, 2008, third party presidential candidates Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) and Ralph Nader (Independent) met to discuss the economy at the City Club of Cleveland. While the debates were recorded, the only way to watch them live was to tune into a streaming video on the City Club’s website, which often skipped and was of generally poor quality. C-SPAN will show the taped debate at some point over the weekend, but apparently could not take time out of its busy day of covering the House and Senate to show the short event. Personally, I heard nothing about this debate on any television station, and only found out about it while reading online. Part of the reason that people tend to vote for the two major parties is that many see them as the only viable candidates, and do not even know who the third party candidates are. If the media began to give the same amount of coverage to third parties as they do to the two major parties, by inviting the outsider candidates to the debates or more interviews, then the American public would be able to easily learn about these candidates and their platforms. The United States might at last have a plurality of viable political parties, as opposed to the dichotomy we have now. By not covering the third parties, the media helps to keep them marginalized.
This last point brings the essay to another important change needed in America today: a viable third or fourth party. At the moment, America has a binary system, with two major parties that one would assume would be complete opposites. This, however, is not true. Both parties are a good deal similar. An excellent example of this is in the recent passage of the $700 bn bailout plan for the economy. Both candidates agreed that it was necessary; unsurprising from the Democratic Party candidate perhaps, but not from Senator McCain, whose party ostensibly was for ‘small government.’ In fact, Republican Ronald Reagan once said that “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” And McCain himself recently decried Senator Obama’s tax and healthcare plans as “socialist.” But what could be a more socialist than the United States government intervening in our economy, passing the bailout bill, taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and bailing out ailing megacorporations? Regardless of McCain’s views on things, neither major party, when it comes down to it, are really all that different; they are more like warring siblings: both think similarly and their real goal is merely to one-up the other. Neither party really believes in cutting back spending, despite what they might say; the last president to lower the national debt to $0, for example, was Andrew Jackson, in 1835. Democrats are often cited for being spendthrifts, but under President Bush America has seen the national debt skyrocket. Obviously, neither party seems to advocate America living within its means. These are only two of the many similarities between the parties, and anyone who watched the three major debates can likely name a host more. Americans need a real choice of ideology, not the same ideas simply painted red or blue. A viable third or fourth party would present this choice, at least initially. With drastically different ideas from the two major parties, a third party would not only represent a real choice, but would likely force the Democrats and Republicans to redefine their platforms and once again differentiate themselves from each other. Voter turn outs might increase, as well, since those people who do not agree with the Democrats or Republicans would now have another party to turn to, one which could represent their ideals better. If nothing else, a viable third party would force the two major parties to at least discuss new ideas, like actually reducing spending, and not simply try to placate the public by claiming to cut earmarks; which represent a paltry amount of waste compared to money pits like the War on Drugs, or the maintenance of America’s at least 9,000 nuclear warheads. [For more on that, see this text: Norris, Robert S., and Hans M. Kristensen, "The U.S. stockpile, today and tomorrow", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63:5 (September/October 2007): 60-63] While there have been pledges to reduce the number of warheads the United States currently maintains, there has been no visible talk of the complete elimination of this dangerous resource; but this is a topic for another essay. In any case, a third party could bring new ideas to our government and to the public’s knowledge, and can only legitimize our political system once again.
Presented in this essay have been suggestions for two changes that can only help the United States: a change toward more vigilant, truthful and fair reporting of elections by the media, and the growth of a viable third party. There are many more things that America needs to improve itself, but these two items are of paramount importance, and hopefully, are attainable in the near future. Further essays will examine other important changes that America needs.
The opinions contained in the above essay are those of blog contributor Sean Romo, unless otherwise noted. The author is not an expert in political science, economics, or any other field, nor does he claim to be, and in some cases, the author may actually be very uninformed. The author additionally makes no claim as to the quality of the arguments presented here. This article is intended for public use and may be reproduced and disseminated, though the author asks that he be properly cited in these events. Any questions, comments, corrections or complaints may be sent to the author by email at romo1227@gmail.com.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Jane Smiley Says Goodbye Cruel World
In a piece on Huffington Post, Jane Smiley says “The world would be a better place if the American right wing had never existed.” She elucidates a number of points as to why that is the case, a few of which are accurate; however, the liberal position that she takes makes a mockery of the valid points she brings up. I’m going to try to, relatively briefly, quote and refute:
Smiley: “The American economy would not have hopped from bubble to bubble if the right wing had not put all of their faith in deregulation, and American jobs would not have been sent abroad.”
I’m sorry, but what is it about liberals that they cannot see that bubbles are not caused by deregulation? Bubbles are caused by government intervention in the market, which is a policy agreed upon by 99% of those in Washington. The policies which lead us to this point started with Democrat and liberal FDR, who extended the Depression with a combination of communist and fascist moves . Barney Frank is one of the biggest recipients of money from Fannie and Freddie, yet Democrats rallied behind him to save a bubble from bursting. I liken it to building a levy, and when the levy is near the breaking point, building the levy up higher. As my geology professor pointed out, the build-up will eventually spill over. The market works because the levies are natural and small, allowing for small spillover. It also allows for both the rapid and gradual change of the surface of the earth, or the economy, but usually in small stream and isolated locations. Government intervention creates artificially high levies, and thus puts off the small flood in favor of the deluge.
Smiley: “We would have retained the respect of other nations, and not aroused the absolute hatred of those we have attempted to bomb into submission.”
Smiley here forgets American history. We’ve been trying to bomb peoples into submission since Roosevelt, and if we had bombs to drop a few decades before then, they would have suited our policies perfectly. America has been imperialistic for a century or more now, from Vietnam to Korea to Cuba to Iraq. If she thinks that policy is in play because of the right wing, she should remember that it was borne largely out of the Wilsonian left. The peaceniks on the left (one of which Obama is certainly not) and on the right know that hawks are allied not in one party, but one city, and that is Washington DC.
Smiley: “In the capitalist world, you are not just supposed to starve, you are supposed to deserve starving -- insult added to injury, humiliation added pain. Of course, as Naomi Klein has shown, the "free market" is never free at all, it is fixed, by dictators and armies and oligarchs.”
The free market, in this country, has also been fixed, but Senator Obama promotes that fix. He does not want a free market for the same reasons other politicians and Wall Street executives don’t: they are the top dogs in the status quo. They have the most power, and thus they bail out the rich who fund them and desire an increase in government spending and control over people’s lives. The liberals in this country think Obama is some sort of Cinncinnatus, reluctantly thrust into power by the will of the masses. The truth is he is as McCain once tried to portray him, but failed: a pragmatic candidate from a party machine which has been in place for decades. Obama may be new, but his policies are the same.
Now, I agree with the author that the right has been bad for America, and I'll not pretend to have the writing skills or fantastic career she does. The right's fear-mongering, authoritarianism, extreme religiosity, war-hawking and class warfare are frightening. Neo-conservatism has taken this country to new lows. Just don’t be surprised if Obama turns out to be more of the same, or worse, a new FDR.
Smiley: “The American economy would not have hopped from bubble to bubble if the right wing had not put all of their faith in deregulation, and American jobs would not have been sent abroad.”
I’m sorry, but what is it about liberals that they cannot see that bubbles are not caused by deregulation? Bubbles are caused by government intervention in the market, which is a policy agreed upon by 99% of those in Washington. The policies which lead us to this point started with Democrat and liberal FDR, who extended the Depression with a combination of communist and fascist moves . Barney Frank is one of the biggest recipients of money from Fannie and Freddie, yet Democrats rallied behind him to save a bubble from bursting. I liken it to building a levy, and when the levy is near the breaking point, building the levy up higher. As my geology professor pointed out, the build-up will eventually spill over. The market works because the levies are natural and small, allowing for small spillover. It also allows for both the rapid and gradual change of the surface of the earth, or the economy, but usually in small stream and isolated locations. Government intervention creates artificially high levies, and thus puts off the small flood in favor of the deluge.
Smiley: “We would have retained the respect of other nations, and not aroused the absolute hatred of those we have attempted to bomb into submission.”
Smiley here forgets American history. We’ve been trying to bomb peoples into submission since Roosevelt, and if we had bombs to drop a few decades before then, they would have suited our policies perfectly. America has been imperialistic for a century or more now, from Vietnam to Korea to Cuba to Iraq. If she thinks that policy is in play because of the right wing, she should remember that it was borne largely out of the Wilsonian left. The peaceniks on the left (one of which Obama is certainly not) and on the right know that hawks are allied not in one party, but one city, and that is Washington DC.
Smiley: “In the capitalist world, you are not just supposed to starve, you are supposed to deserve starving -- insult added to injury, humiliation added pain. Of course, as Naomi Klein has shown, the "free market" is never free at all, it is fixed, by dictators and armies and oligarchs.”
The free market, in this country, has also been fixed, but Senator Obama promotes that fix. He does not want a free market for the same reasons other politicians and Wall Street executives don’t: they are the top dogs in the status quo. They have the most power, and thus they bail out the rich who fund them and desire an increase in government spending and control over people’s lives. The liberals in this country think Obama is some sort of Cinncinnatus, reluctantly thrust into power by the will of the masses. The truth is he is as McCain once tried to portray him, but failed: a pragmatic candidate from a party machine which has been in place for decades. Obama may be new, but his policies are the same.
Now, I agree with the author that the right has been bad for America, and I'll not pretend to have the writing skills or fantastic career she does. The right's fear-mongering, authoritarianism, extreme religiosity, war-hawking and class warfare are frightening. Neo-conservatism has taken this country to new lows. Just don’t be surprised if Obama turns out to be more of the same, or worse, a new FDR.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The 2008 Party Platforms, or, Exercises in Hypocrisy
We saw at the GOP convention that the parties have no problem ignoring the rules and standards they set for expediency. When one delegate accidentally said “George S. McCain” was his candidate of choice, it was ignored, and when Ron Paul delegates tried to voice their vote, they were ignored. Since the candidate is no longer chosen at the convention, the most interesting part of the gathering is the platform. Both parties put forth platforms which are self-contradictory, and both parties routinely ignore them shortly thereafter. Let’s take a look at some of my favorite planks from this year:
Republican: Under the heading “Preserving Traditional Marriage”, the Republicans did not outline a method for preventing divorce or encouraging healthy relationships, but rather a national policy of prohibiting people in love from marrying. They call for “a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” Whether that Constitutional Amendment has violates the separation of church and state is interesting to secular folk, but it is not surprising that just three paragraphs later, the GOP recommends, under “Safeguarding Religious Liberties”, that “public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.” Since gays are unnatural evil and Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of America, gays should form a sect of Christianity. Right wing Republicans would either have to accept those marriages, change their policy to something more clearly bigoted, or have their heads explode. Also, I like how they mention “public” display of the 10 rules, but fail to discern between, say, a privately owned lawn or billboard and federal or state owned property, all of which are potentially visible in public.
Democrats: Under the bold title “Win in Afghanistan”, the Democrats this year decided that Iraq is a bad war, and Afghanistan is a good war. “Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan,” the write, “but…we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq.” Now, I will not argue that the statement doesn’t make sense. Everyone knows Iraq took funds from other places, including domestic spending and Iraq. What puzzles me is what the difference is between the two. Democrats and Republicans agree it was somehow justified, legally and morally, to invade Afghanistan after September 11, because they harbored Al Qaeda. Well, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries now do so, or did then. The Bush Doctrine states that sovereignty does not exist. I wonder if Senator Obama, like Woodrow Wilson and many other Presidents before Bush, will agree that we respect sovereignty when convenient and dispense with it when we feel like it.
Democrats: They have a section called “Fiscal Responsibility” in which they claim that they “reject the proposals of those who want to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous economic policies.” Uh huh. So the bailout, the sellout of American ideals and taxpayers, was all your idea? Or should we expect an effort to expand the blame to those terrible ‘proposers’ once it becomes clear even to the partisan hacks that it was a crime.
Republicans: Here’s a gem. The GOP thinks “Securing our Civil Liberties” is important enough for a one paragraph section. It reads: “Because our Constitution is based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, we must always ensure that law enforcement respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people…[h]owever, no expansion of governmental powers should occur at the expense of our constitutional liberties.” Where does one begin to refute the Republican platform with its own actions? Spying on civilians, Department of Homeland Security, war on drug…well, just read this.
I take issue not with the fact that I disagree with many issues of these parties, but merely that they do not create consistent policies and fail to adhere to their own platform, and these are just a few examples. Of course, if they were rational, coherent groups, then discussion would about philosophical thought, not tiny sound bites, and the parties would be about those principles on which members have general agreement, not corporate cronyism and special interest dollars.
The platforms can be found here(Dems) and here (GOP)
Republican: Under the heading “Preserving Traditional Marriage”, the Republicans did not outline a method for preventing divorce or encouraging healthy relationships, but rather a national policy of prohibiting people in love from marrying. They call for “a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” Whether that Constitutional Amendment has violates the separation of church and state is interesting to secular folk, but it is not surprising that just three paragraphs later, the GOP recommends, under “Safeguarding Religious Liberties”, that “public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.” Since gays are unnatural evil and Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of America, gays should form a sect of Christianity. Right wing Republicans would either have to accept those marriages, change their policy to something more clearly bigoted, or have their heads explode. Also, I like how they mention “public” display of the 10 rules, but fail to discern between, say, a privately owned lawn or billboard and federal or state owned property, all of which are potentially visible in public.
Democrats: Under the bold title “Win in Afghanistan”, the Democrats this year decided that Iraq is a bad war, and Afghanistan is a good war. “Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan,” the write, “but…we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq.” Now, I will not argue that the statement doesn’t make sense. Everyone knows Iraq took funds from other places, including domestic spending and Iraq. What puzzles me is what the difference is between the two. Democrats and Republicans agree it was somehow justified, legally and morally, to invade Afghanistan after September 11, because they harbored Al Qaeda. Well, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries now do so, or did then. The Bush Doctrine states that sovereignty does not exist. I wonder if Senator Obama, like Woodrow Wilson and many other Presidents before Bush, will agree that we respect sovereignty when convenient and dispense with it when we feel like it.
Democrats: They have a section called “Fiscal Responsibility” in which they claim that they “reject the proposals of those who want to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous economic policies.” Uh huh. So the bailout, the sellout of American ideals and taxpayers, was all your idea? Or should we expect an effort to expand the blame to those terrible ‘proposers’ once it becomes clear even to the partisan hacks that it was a crime.
Republicans: Here’s a gem. The GOP thinks “Securing our Civil Liberties” is important enough for a one paragraph section. It reads: “Because our Constitution is based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, we must always ensure that law enforcement respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people…[h]owever, no expansion of governmental powers should occur at the expense of our constitutional liberties.” Where does one begin to refute the Republican platform with its own actions? Spying on civilians, Department of Homeland Security, war on drug…well, just read this.
I take issue not with the fact that I disagree with many issues of these parties, but merely that they do not create consistent policies and fail to adhere to their own platform, and these are just a few examples. Of course, if they were rational, coherent groups, then discussion would about philosophical thought, not tiny sound bites, and the parties would be about those principles on which members have general agreement, not corporate cronyism and special interest dollars.
The platforms can be found here(Dems) and here (GOP)
Why the Polls are Wrong
The Presidential polling organizations have varying degrees of accuracy, but they are all wrong on one account. No, it’s not that Barack Obama doesn’t have a comfortable lead. There is consensus that he leads. The lead differs based on the poll, and varies from three to thirteen points as of this writing. What is wrong about the polls is that they are not fully honest: they ignore third party candidates. On CNN today, I saw a poll in which Obama, McCain and Undecided added up to 100%. Now, whether that poll counted third party votes as Undecided, ignored them, or whatever else, it is safe to assume that they didn’t poll hundreds of people and find zero Nader, McKinney, Barr, Baldwin or write-in supporters.
The ignorance of third parties is startling just eight years after the Nader-Gore issue. In every state in which Zogby cannot predict a winner at this time, the Not Sure/Other vote is more than the margin by which Obama leads. Those states are Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and Nevada. If McCain loses anyone of them, but especially Ohio and Florida, the prognosis will be bleak. If that’s the case, then the disenfranchisement of moderates and libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and further pandering to the Sarah Palin end of the spectrum could be to blame. If Obama loses Ohio or Florida, he could be in for a long night as well, though it is less likely. Obviously neither can expect zero votes to go to third party candidates, but how the media has avoided coverage of the impact of those candidates makes zero sense.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Palin’s Nonsensical Two Americas
Governor Sarah Palin has a lot going for her, and a lot for which she can be criticized. Her latest comments, though, go beyond the already unfortunate social wars the two parties wage on the campaign trail and into the realm of hate speech. That’s right, if people who live in cities were a race, Palin would be inciting hate of that race. If people from cities were a religion, she would be clearly biased against it for no rational reason. Palin has taken the opportunity to point out that “real America” is small town, conservative America. I had not realized that I was a fake American. Here’s what she said (thanks Huffington Post):
“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.”
I forgot that there are no teachers or factory workers in cities. Last time I checked, the only reason Detroit lacks teachers and factory workers is because our economy is in the toilet. In fact, rural America, the farms and small towns, rely on those factories, just as the cities rely on the rural areas.
How does Sarah Palin explain to Rudy Giuliani that he is not a real American? Rush Limbaugh declares every hour, on the hour, that New York is the greatest city in the world (I assume he does so when off the air as well). Is he once again full of hot air? Does he work in a fake American city? How big does a town have to be in order to have real American citizens. Can we break Los Angeles into a thousand little towns so these poor fake Americans can finally see the light?
The Next Four Years and Why Things Won’t Change
No matter which of the two major candidates wins this November, little will change in the manner in which this country is run. If Barack Obama wins, surely there will be some social changes. Many African-Americans, and even other minorities, will feel empowered by his victory. Just as importantly, poor people and those from single parent families can claim that same feeling of empowerment. Now, we can’t all be talented and hard working enough to get into Harvard and become President, but I just graduated from college and come from a single parent home, and Obama’s rise certainly reassures me that anything is possible in my future.
Mostly, though, we are in dire straits. When resolving to point out why almost every politician is bad news, one must remember that DoubleSpeak is invariably involved, so let’s start with what does not make sense about the two candidates. Obama and McCain say that they’ll cut taxes for nearly every American (including me, although having no income exempts me anyway), they fail to address the real problem: too much government. There’s too much spending, too much Fed, no free market or free trade, too much federal power and a slew of other issues which neither will even consider. Neither is anti-war. Obama will end the Iraq War, but will not rule out the Bush Doctrine (in practice, anyway), which (listen up Gov. Palin) allows for blatant violation of sovereignty. McCain was tortured for crying out loud, and still supports more and more war, more and more Defense spending. In fact, McCain could win major points with his base by trying to close expensive foreign military bases and telling those surrender loving Europeans to start defending their own turf. The hyporcrisy is so thick that just writing the last paragraph has made me physically tired, and I barely scratched the surface.
This brings me to my point: in politics, when one sees a problem, the correct method for resolving said problem is to ignore it. Third parties want ballot access and involvement in debates? Ignore them. The Fed creates booms and busts and inflation and has massive conflicts of interest with the same businesses it bails out? Ignore it. We don’t have a viable monetary system and are Johannes Gutenberg-ing our way into oblivion? Ignore it. Constitution in your way? Ignore it. The list goes on.
The two parties resolve their issues as such: identify a problem, break it down into a microcosm of the actual issue, then create a false choice and social dichotomy such that the American public feels as though there are only two viable solutions. Then the two parties create platforms so similar that the choice becomes a personal matter instead of a philosophical one. Citizens feel they must vote for the lesser of two evils, sacrificing their hopes and dignity. If one feels one’s choice is evil, even if lesser than the other evil, one’s expectations are lowered. Thus, one is not surprised by any behavior, from Barney Frank bailing out a major donor to his campaign in Fannie and Freddie, to wholesome Republicans having gay sex in public places, to a President with little grasp of English grammar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)