The Real Change We Need, Part I

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.