We are all not that different. Sometimes I forget that. And then I meet someone from half way around the world whose life is different in so many ways from the life I have lived so far and the experiences I have had but in the end we are all human and our experiences as humans are eerily similar.
A few weeks ago I was fortunate enough to meet two Rwandan Reggae musicians at a friends house. They grew up at a time where their country was in the midst of genocide and I can only imagine the horrors they have seen countless times.
But then you realize that despite the differences in the paths our lives have taken we have the same feelings and struggle with similar things every day.
The conversation that lead me to start thinking about how even worlds away our humanity links us was about dating and the trials involving members of the opposite sex and it was amazing how our observations and insights about being young and single were almost exactly the same.
This human link is what we need to remember in this increasingly globalized world. The genocide in Darfur is can not be brushed off because it is a world away and we should not forget he millions of starving people because they are not in our immediate world. Half way around the world everyone experiences pain, and hunger and joy in the same way.
Remembering that we are all human will hopefully make us all more sensitive to all of our Fellow humans.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Hate Only Begets Hate
Last week in one of my classes I heard the story of a man who lived under apartheid in South Africa. He shared his story about living as the son of an honorary white woman, who despite the color of her skin was given special privileges because of her United States citizenship. As he matured he realized what the realities of life in South Africa were and began to speak out against the injustices that he and half of his country experienced everyday.
Because of his political views and his attempts to end apartheid his wife and three young children were murdered. When he arrived home to find his family dead he says he immediately decided to start using terrorism against the government who had taken his family away from him. He moved to a nearby country and received explosives training from Cuban guerrillas. After his education he returned to South Africa and began his life as a terrorist.
Eventually he ended up in Southern California and began studying at USC, still hating all white people. IT took a while but he soon began to see that despite the evils that the white government had inflicted on him and his family it was unfair to see all whites as evil.
He credits his peers at USC for showing him that his experience was the exception to the rule and thanked our class for proving this point again.
Hate is a feeling that is difficult to explain, but this mans story affirmed my belief that hate will only lead to more hate. He closed his story with this quote,
“The only person who is affected by hate is yourself, because half the people you hate don’t know you hate them and the other half does not even care”
Because of his political views and his attempts to end apartheid his wife and three young children were murdered. When he arrived home to find his family dead he says he immediately decided to start using terrorism against the government who had taken his family away from him. He moved to a nearby country and received explosives training from Cuban guerrillas. After his education he returned to South Africa and began his life as a terrorist.
Eventually he ended up in Southern California and began studying at USC, still hating all white people. IT took a while but he soon began to see that despite the evils that the white government had inflicted on him and his family it was unfair to see all whites as evil.
He credits his peers at USC for showing him that his experience was the exception to the rule and thanked our class for proving this point again.
Hate is a feeling that is difficult to explain, but this mans story affirmed my belief that hate will only lead to more hate. He closed his story with this quote,
“The only person who is affected by hate is yourself, because half the people you hate don’t know you hate them and the other half does not even care”
Monday, April 14, 2008
FYI: Reagan's Insight
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Democracy
Democracy is defined as a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
As an American I feel like sometimes I take it for granted that I live in a country governed by the principles of democracy, but the second I begin to consider what life is like where a portion of the population is left out of government or where predatory governments reign I realize that democracy should never be taken for granted.
This morning I read this article in the current of Foreign Affairs Magazine discussing the shaky states that many democracies around the world are in. It explains that the world should momentarily stop focusing on cultivating more democracies around the world and instead ensure that the troubled democracies in places such as Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria are given the support needed to survive and thrive.
Reading the article lead me to think about how easily my ability to be represented in my government could be taken away given the proper circumstances and how frightening it would be to live in a country that is governed by opportunistic leaders who favor themselves and their friends and neglect the people who they supposedly represent.
Typically when I see an injustice or want to understand a situation better I become a proactive researcher and activist to find out what I can do to change a situation. But I now feel helpless. How do I spread an idea around the world and help to extol the virtues of democracies to ensure that others around the world can enjoy the same ability to live under a government that works for its citizens?
Hopefully an idea comes to me soon.
As an American I feel like sometimes I take it for granted that I live in a country governed by the principles of democracy, but the second I begin to consider what life is like where a portion of the population is left out of government or where predatory governments reign I realize that democracy should never be taken for granted.
This morning I read this article in the current of Foreign Affairs Magazine discussing the shaky states that many democracies around the world are in. It explains that the world should momentarily stop focusing on cultivating more democracies around the world and instead ensure that the troubled democracies in places such as Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria are given the support needed to survive and thrive.
Reading the article lead me to think about how easily my ability to be represented in my government could be taken away given the proper circumstances and how frightening it would be to live in a country that is governed by opportunistic leaders who favor themselves and their friends and neglect the people who they supposedly represent.
Typically when I see an injustice or want to understand a situation better I become a proactive researcher and activist to find out what I can do to change a situation. But I now feel helpless. How do I spread an idea around the world and help to extol the virtues of democracies to ensure that others around the world can enjoy the same ability to live under a government that works for its citizens?
Hopefully an idea comes to me soon.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Save the Democrats
Political Math posted a comment on my blog asking who I feel should drop out first in the Democratic Party to let the nominee prepare adequately for the general election and after pondering the answer is still I do not know. I believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to sit down with the leaders of the Democratic Party and have an honest and open discussion about who will be more likely to beat John McCain. I know that Democrats have done intense polling on this subject and need to let the numbers do the talking if the Democrats want the White House back in their control.
After these numbers are scrutinized the candidate who is less likely to win needs to accept the Vice Presidency and the fight needs to end for the sake of their party.
After these numbers are scrutinized the candidate who is less likely to win needs to accept the Vice Presidency and the fight needs to end for the sake of their party.
the Problem with Healthcare
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of sitting in on a speech by Dr. Hector Flores who is credited with strengthening the existing safety net and improving economic development in the East Los Angeles region. During the presentation I was shocked to see the statistics on the lack of healthcare in the less affluent areas of Los Angeles. I was upset thinking of parents with sick children and no health insurance and continued to ponder the presentation for the days to come.
Over spring break my grandfather fell and hit his head and was taken to the hospital. My grandfather immigrated to the United States in his early 20’s from Portugal with a sixth grade education. He worked extremely hard to buy and grow his own business and is now successful enough to be able to send twelve grandchildren to school.
My grandfather was at our local community hospital for a few hours after the fall and when I went in to see him he was being prepared to be put on a helicopter to go to Stanford. I could not help but wonder what would happen if my grandfather did not have health insurance or money to pay for the best medical care money can buy. I pulled one of the doctors wandering the halls of the ER aside and asked and was assured that ability to pay, whether through health insurance or not, was not taken into consideration. All people brought to the hospital will be given the best care and if need be will be sent to a hospital that is better equipped to deal with certain issues.
The conversation relieved my fears about sick poor children not being taken care of and also made me ponder whether health insurance was something all Americans are entitled to. Everyone will receive medical attention. The real problem is that in areas with poor socioeconomic status the health care resources will not be as adequate as they are in wealthy areas. This is not the failure of the healthcare system. To fix these issues the United States needs to focus on bringing economic stimulation to low income areas. They need to be safer and business friendly to increase economic activity and employ the people in the area. Safer more vibrant communities will increase the likelihood that healthcare services in the area are of high caliber.
It is also important to focus on lowering the costs of healthcare. Doing so will benefit all Americans and will allow those who do not have access to health insurance options to receive heath care.
All people have should be able to see a doctor and ensure that their children are growing up healthily, but a government run healthcare system is not the option. At work the past few days I have been scheduling meeting for my boss on his trip to Washington DC next month. Almost all of the offices can not even seem to handle a scheduling request for one person properly and with efficiency
If a small government office can not even handle the task of arranging a meeting I am unconvinced that the government should have any hand in arranging healthcare for the entire nation.
There are a lot of questions in my mind that need to be answered in regards to healthcare. In many ways I am still unsure about what needs to be done to fix the system. The one thing I do know is that it is a problem that the government largely needs to stay out of.
Over spring break my grandfather fell and hit his head and was taken to the hospital. My grandfather immigrated to the United States in his early 20’s from Portugal with a sixth grade education. He worked extremely hard to buy and grow his own business and is now successful enough to be able to send twelve grandchildren to school.
My grandfather was at our local community hospital for a few hours after the fall and when I went in to see him he was being prepared to be put on a helicopter to go to Stanford. I could not help but wonder what would happen if my grandfather did not have health insurance or money to pay for the best medical care money can buy. I pulled one of the doctors wandering the halls of the ER aside and asked and was assured that ability to pay, whether through health insurance or not, was not taken into consideration. All people brought to the hospital will be given the best care and if need be will be sent to a hospital that is better equipped to deal with certain issues.
The conversation relieved my fears about sick poor children not being taken care of and also made me ponder whether health insurance was something all Americans are entitled to. Everyone will receive medical attention. The real problem is that in areas with poor socioeconomic status the health care resources will not be as adequate as they are in wealthy areas. This is not the failure of the healthcare system. To fix these issues the United States needs to focus on bringing economic stimulation to low income areas. They need to be safer and business friendly to increase economic activity and employ the people in the area. Safer more vibrant communities will increase the likelihood that healthcare services in the area are of high caliber.
It is also important to focus on lowering the costs of healthcare. Doing so will benefit all Americans and will allow those who do not have access to health insurance options to receive heath care.
All people have should be able to see a doctor and ensure that their children are growing up healthily, but a government run healthcare system is not the option. At work the past few days I have been scheduling meeting for my boss on his trip to Washington DC next month. Almost all of the offices can not even seem to handle a scheduling request for one person properly and with efficiency
If a small government office can not even handle the task of arranging a meeting I am unconvinced that the government should have any hand in arranging healthcare for the entire nation.
There are a lot of questions in my mind that need to be answered in regards to healthcare. In many ways I am still unsure about what needs to be done to fix the system. The one thing I do know is that it is a problem that the government largely needs to stay out of.
Monday, March 24, 2008
10 points for Maureen Dowd
I just wanted to take a second to praise Maureen Dowd as a reporter, female and honorary member of the Party of Logic. She is truly amazing and I look forward to Wednesdays and Sundays so I can read her newest column and send it to everyone I know.
Here are some of her recent bests:
Can Hillary cry her way back to the White House?
Mitt is no JFK
Seven days in December?
The Dream is Dead
Here are some of her recent bests:
Can Hillary cry her way back to the White House?
Mitt is no JFK
Seven days in December?
The Dream is Dead
O these scandalous politicians
Elliott Spitzer paid for sex. We have heard this story over and over again. I had to boycott the news off during the avalanche of sex scandals last spring and summer. I was absolutely disgusted with the endless stories of pedophilia, rape and solicitation that seemed to plague the Republican Party.
Actually my first reaction to Governor Spitzer’s story was “at least he was having sex with a adult”. Then I started thinking about it. Prostitution is illegal. I may not agree with it being illegal, but it is.
Public officials take an oath to uphold the law. Although I sympathize with sex starved men I cannot condone breaking the pledge that these people took when they were elected. America should not let our elected officials get away with breaking their pledge to us.
But then again, at least he had sex with a consenting adult.
Actually my first reaction to Governor Spitzer’s story was “at least he was having sex with a adult”. Then I started thinking about it. Prostitution is illegal. I may not agree with it being illegal, but it is.
Public officials take an oath to uphold the law. Although I sympathize with sex starved men I cannot condone breaking the pledge that these people took when they were elected. America should not let our elected officials get away with breaking their pledge to us.
But then again, at least he had sex with a consenting adult.
Private v. Public
For the Lenten season my friend Vanessa and I decided that we wanted to volunteer at the Los Angeles Mission. The Mission is a homeless shelter and soup kitchen that also has a program that allows formerly homeless men to get back on their feet. They are given physical, spiritual and mental guidance so they can re-enter society as functioning adults. When volunteering at the mission I worked right along the men in the program to feed the many men who were just at the mission for the night.
It has been about six weeks since I began volunteering and I have found that it is something that I enjoy and look forward to every weekend. It has also reinforced my belief and any true Republicans belief that private establishments and businesses can and will do everything better than the government. I have seen first hand that the LA Mission’s program successfully graduates an overwhelming number of the participants and successfully keeps these graduates off the streets.
Rehabilitating formerly homeless men is a very personal and intimate job and by nature the United States government possesses neither of these qualities. When there is evidence that private institutions can provide these services more efficiently and with better quality then the government it is only logical that the government should step back and just provide monetary support to the places that provide these services the best.
It is also important that the fortunate among us donate out time and talent to places like the LA Mission. Volunteers are critical to the effectiveness of charity organizations but volunteering also allows volunteers to grow and become more aware of the world around them.
Click here for the LA Missions Webiste
It has been about six weeks since I began volunteering and I have found that it is something that I enjoy and look forward to every weekend. It has also reinforced my belief and any true Republicans belief that private establishments and businesses can and will do everything better than the government. I have seen first hand that the LA Mission’s program successfully graduates an overwhelming number of the participants and successfully keeps these graduates off the streets.
Rehabilitating formerly homeless men is a very personal and intimate job and by nature the United States government possesses neither of these qualities. When there is evidence that private institutions can provide these services more efficiently and with better quality then the government it is only logical that the government should step back and just provide monetary support to the places that provide these services the best.
It is also important that the fortunate among us donate out time and talent to places like the LA Mission. Volunteers are critical to the effectiveness of charity organizations but volunteering also allows volunteers to grow and become more aware of the world around them.
Click here for the LA Missions Webiste
Monday, March 10, 2008
UP, UP and Away
Density. Manahatanization. High rises. Whichever word you use to describe it Los Angeles is in desperate need of taller buildings. The Los Angeles Metropolitan area has been at its physical limit for a while now and although the city is unable to build out it has not discouraged people from moving here. Now the only place to go is up.
This translates to density and in 2004 Senate Bill 1818 was passed to encourage density throughout the State of California by awarding extra density to developers who chose to build affordable units in their buildings. SB 1818 aimed at adding density and building affordable housing.
Each city was tasked with implementing SB 1818 to insure that it met each cities needs. Most cities took advantage of this and adopted implementing ordinances soon after SB 1818 passed. Los Angeles was not one of those cities.
The fight over implementing SB 1818 has been going on since the law was passed almost four years ago. Council members who live by the saying, “Not in My Back Yard” refused to implement the ordinance for fear that high rises would be built in their single family home neighborhoods and because they feared that the affordable unites incorporated into the buildings would not be truly affordable.
All of these reasons that Council members used to oppose SB 1818 are not only ill informed but they also fail to see past the need to please their constituents and realize a broader vision for the future of Los Angeles.
All cities have zoning requirements. Because of zoning there is very little possibility that a high rise will be built in the center of a single story home neighborhood. It is not a valid reason not to implement SB 1818, which is state law, because you do not want density in your own backyard.
Other Council members claim the need for affordable housing as a reason to deny SB 1818 which is more unwarranted than the “not in my backyard” members of the city council. In a few years the ordinance that mandates affordable housing will be timed out and there is very little hope that another will replace it.
It is understandable that City Council wants to make it possible for all Angelenos to live in the city but SB 1818 is not going to eliminate affordable housing. SB 1818 is going to ensure that there are at least a few affordable units in place when the buildings dedicated to affordable housing are torn down because they are no longer being subsidized.
Only looking at these small concerns is ensuring that Los Angeles will not be a viable place to live in the future. We are running out of places to put all of the people who choose to live here, and the lack of supply and high demand makes charging exorbitant amounts of money for rent in Los Angeles possible.
Density will add to the supply of housing in Los Angeles and in turn the increased supply will help to lower housing prices for the entire population. Density is not only something that would make living in Los Angeles more affordable it is the only solution to the housing crisis here. The city is bursting at its edges and if Los Angeles wants to continue growing it needs to make it possible to look toward the sky to do so.
SB 1818 was passed by City Council in February but now Councilmember Hahn is threatening to file a motion to petition to exempt Los Angeles from SB 1818. This would mean disaster for the Los Angeles region and its future. It is about time that the future is taken into consideration, not just the changing whims of a council district.
LA Weekly Anti-Density Article
SB 1818
This translates to density and in 2004 Senate Bill 1818 was passed to encourage density throughout the State of California by awarding extra density to developers who chose to build affordable units in their buildings. SB 1818 aimed at adding density and building affordable housing.
Each city was tasked with implementing SB 1818 to insure that it met each cities needs. Most cities took advantage of this and adopted implementing ordinances soon after SB 1818 passed. Los Angeles was not one of those cities.
The fight over implementing SB 1818 has been going on since the law was passed almost four years ago. Council members who live by the saying, “Not in My Back Yard” refused to implement the ordinance for fear that high rises would be built in their single family home neighborhoods and because they feared that the affordable unites incorporated into the buildings would not be truly affordable.
All of these reasons that Council members used to oppose SB 1818 are not only ill informed but they also fail to see past the need to please their constituents and realize a broader vision for the future of Los Angeles.
All cities have zoning requirements. Because of zoning there is very little possibility that a high rise will be built in the center of a single story home neighborhood. It is not a valid reason not to implement SB 1818, which is state law, because you do not want density in your own backyard.
Other Council members claim the need for affordable housing as a reason to deny SB 1818 which is more unwarranted than the “not in my backyard” members of the city council. In a few years the ordinance that mandates affordable housing will be timed out and there is very little hope that another will replace it.
It is understandable that City Council wants to make it possible for all Angelenos to live in the city but SB 1818 is not going to eliminate affordable housing. SB 1818 is going to ensure that there are at least a few affordable units in place when the buildings dedicated to affordable housing are torn down because they are no longer being subsidized.
Only looking at these small concerns is ensuring that Los Angeles will not be a viable place to live in the future. We are running out of places to put all of the people who choose to live here, and the lack of supply and high demand makes charging exorbitant amounts of money for rent in Los Angeles possible.
Density will add to the supply of housing in Los Angeles and in turn the increased supply will help to lower housing prices for the entire population. Density is not only something that would make living in Los Angeles more affordable it is the only solution to the housing crisis here. The city is bursting at its edges and if Los Angeles wants to continue growing it needs to make it possible to look toward the sky to do so.
SB 1818 was passed by City Council in February but now Councilmember Hahn is threatening to file a motion to petition to exempt Los Angeles from SB 1818. This would mean disaster for the Los Angeles region and its future. It is about time that the future is taken into consideration, not just the changing whims of a council district.
LA Weekly Anti-Density Article
SB 1818
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The Heiress
The breaking news of the past few weeks is that voters are falling for Clinton. They find her charismatic, intelligent, and a candidate that they would love to vote for. The only problem is that casting a ballot for her will have to wait because the Clinton voters are impressed by is Chelsea, not her mother, who is currently in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Chelsea, with her fathers charisma and her mothers impressive no-nonsense intelligence is a combination of two of the most common and influential political archetypes. She is well poised to be the heiress to the Clinton political dynasty.
In the past Chelsea Clinton has been hidden from the world. Her teenage years spent in the White House were fiercely protected from the prying eyes of the media. Now well into her twenties she has only broken her no interview once despite being a current fixture on her mother’s campaign.
She has become one of her mothers most valued surrogates, even more so than her father former President Bill Clinton, who has a tendency to cause trouble for his wife. Initially her presence on the campaign trail was received with skepticism, but she has continued to win voters over with her self confidence and easy going attitude.
A few weeks ago the New York Magazine wrote a piece on the daughter of the Clinton’s and pondered her potential future in politics. The article draws a interesting parallel because in a few months she will be the same age that her father was the first time he entered into the political arena. Her role in her mother’s campaign is sparking the interest of politicos throughout the United States and helping to fuel this debate.
Because she appears to have the perfect combination of her mothers mind and fathers likeable personality she is easily classified as the best of both worlds. These personal qualities are what are needed to be a successful politician especially at the federal level.
Chelsea almost appears to have been raised for a future in politics. With no embarrassing college moments such as those as of the Bush twins she is not only a natural but also well prepared for a seamless entrance into politics.
Taking into consideration the fact that I personally may not agree with her politics, as a young professional woman I am still able appreciate that Chelsea is a strong women who can prove to the world that she is more than a pretty face or an object of adoration. Her success is admirable and despite her political ideology I will hope the best for her.
Not only is she a personal role model, Chelsea Clinton should be a role model for all young women who have political ambitions. Despite all of the stereotypes that women have broken and the numerous achievements females have made there are still a number of biases for women in politics. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example.
Hillary is seen as hard and emotionless and despite all of her efforts to appear feminine and soft she cannot seem to get it right. The larger problem is that she has been criticized for this.
I can only hope that Chelsea is the next generation of women who are able to embody mental sharpness and an easy going likeability that men never seem to have an issue with. Her performance on the campaign trail seems to be an indicator that politics comes naturally to her and now the only question left to answer is whether she will inevitably follow in the footsteps of her parents and become a politician herself.
For the sake of my generation of women who have found the balance between masculinity and femininity and intelligence and likeability I hope that she does choose to enter politics, or at least the public arena. She would be the perfect individual to help pave the road for women who would like to have it all.
Chelsea, with her fathers charisma and her mothers impressive no-nonsense intelligence is a combination of two of the most common and influential political archetypes. She is well poised to be the heiress to the Clinton political dynasty.
In the past Chelsea Clinton has been hidden from the world. Her teenage years spent in the White House were fiercely protected from the prying eyes of the media. Now well into her twenties she has only broken her no interview once despite being a current fixture on her mother’s campaign.
She has become one of her mothers most valued surrogates, even more so than her father former President Bill Clinton, who has a tendency to cause trouble for his wife. Initially her presence on the campaign trail was received with skepticism, but she has continued to win voters over with her self confidence and easy going attitude.
A few weeks ago the New York Magazine wrote a piece on the daughter of the Clinton’s and pondered her potential future in politics. The article draws a interesting parallel because in a few months she will be the same age that her father was the first time he entered into the political arena. Her role in her mother’s campaign is sparking the interest of politicos throughout the United States and helping to fuel this debate.
Because she appears to have the perfect combination of her mothers mind and fathers likeable personality she is easily classified as the best of both worlds. These personal qualities are what are needed to be a successful politician especially at the federal level.
Chelsea almost appears to have been raised for a future in politics. With no embarrassing college moments such as those as of the Bush twins she is not only a natural but also well prepared for a seamless entrance into politics.
Taking into consideration the fact that I personally may not agree with her politics, as a young professional woman I am still able appreciate that Chelsea is a strong women who can prove to the world that she is more than a pretty face or an object of adoration. Her success is admirable and despite her political ideology I will hope the best for her.
Not only is she a personal role model, Chelsea Clinton should be a role model for all young women who have political ambitions. Despite all of the stereotypes that women have broken and the numerous achievements females have made there are still a number of biases for women in politics. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example.
Hillary is seen as hard and emotionless and despite all of her efforts to appear feminine and soft she cannot seem to get it right. The larger problem is that she has been criticized for this.
I can only hope that Chelsea is the next generation of women who are able to embody mental sharpness and an easy going likeability that men never seem to have an issue with. Her performance on the campaign trail seems to be an indicator that politics comes naturally to her and now the only question left to answer is whether she will inevitably follow in the footsteps of her parents and become a politician herself.
For the sake of my generation of women who have found the balance between masculinity and femininity and intelligence and likeability I hope that she does choose to enter politics, or at least the public arena. She would be the perfect individual to help pave the road for women who would like to have it all.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Which Stain will the Democrats Erase?
“A friend of mine, a black man, said to me, ‘My ancestors came to this country in chains; I’m voting for Barack.’ I told him, ‘Well, my sisters came here in chains and on their periods; I’m voting for Hillary.’ ”
The above quote in the New York Times is useful to help us understand the struggle that Democrats are going through right now. One one hand voters want to nominate Hillary to prove that Americans are not mysoginistic and on the other they want to nominate Obama to prove that Americans are not racist. Both types of discrimination are clearly horrendous and it would be wonderful if in 2008 the United States could have either a female or black president.
The only problem is that as much as I find discrimination disgusting I still understand that to be sucessful in the general election the Democratic candidate will be best served by having time to stockpile money, rest and start campaigning against the Republican nominee.
For the sake of the Democratic Party Obama and Clinton need to be locked in a room and flip a coin to see who will be the nominee. If they can set aside their egos America may be lucky enough to prove to the world that we are neither mysoginistic nor racist with a woman/minority POTUS and VPOTUS team.
The above quote in the New York Times is useful to help us understand the struggle that Democrats are going through right now. One one hand voters want to nominate Hillary to prove that Americans are not mysoginistic and on the other they want to nominate Obama to prove that Americans are not racist. Both types of discrimination are clearly horrendous and it would be wonderful if in 2008 the United States could have either a female or black president.
The only problem is that as much as I find discrimination disgusting I still understand that to be sucessful in the general election the Democratic candidate will be best served by having time to stockpile money, rest and start campaigning against the Republican nominee.
For the sake of the Democratic Party Obama and Clinton need to be locked in a room and flip a coin to see who will be the nominee. If they can set aside their egos America may be lucky enough to prove to the world that we are neither mysoginistic nor racist with a woman/minority POTUS and VPOTUS team.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Clinton's Inner Bitch??
Since Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race people have been discussing what it takes for a woman to be accepted as leader of the free world. In Maureen Dowd's latest column in the NY Times she criticizes Hillary for being to soft and complaining to much. But the same week an SNL skit Tina Fey comments on Hillary's "bitchy-ness"
These two commentaries on Hillary Clinton and her character are very different and it raises the question, "Who is Hillary Clinton?"
On one hand she is hard and emotionless, but there have also been numerous instances where she shows her softer side, shedding tears and hosting intimate town hall meetings. She does not seem to know who she is and neither does the media.
Personally, I think Tina Fey is correct when she implies that there is nothing wrong with a woman who is a bitch because bitches get things accomplished. Isn't that what America and the world needs...A person who can get things done? I do not care if Hillary Clinton likes to cook, or cries often, or has a sensitive overly feminine side. I would be much more willing to support Hillary the bitch, if only she can learn to fully embrace it herself.
These two commentaries on Hillary Clinton and her character are very different and it raises the question, "Who is Hillary Clinton?"
On one hand she is hard and emotionless, but there have also been numerous instances where she shows her softer side, shedding tears and hosting intimate town hall meetings. She does not seem to know who she is and neither does the media.
Personally, I think Tina Fey is correct when she implies that there is nothing wrong with a woman who is a bitch because bitches get things accomplished. Isn't that what America and the world needs...A person who can get things done? I do not care if Hillary Clinton likes to cook, or cries often, or has a sensitive overly feminine side. I would be much more willing to support Hillary the bitch, if only she can learn to fully embrace it herself.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Public Intellectual
In Stephen Mack’s blog entitled “The Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual” he sets forth the idea that those with religious training were the original public intellectuals. Classifying a public intellectual by means of the example of a religious leader, while it makes sense, still is problematic for me because I am unsure what it is about a religious leader that makes them qualified to occasionally fall into the category of public intellectual. For me the larger problem is that I do not know what a public intellectual is. “Public” is an adjective that has quite a few definitions. One is being exposed to general view. Another is of or relating to people in general. Another is accessible to or shared by all members of the community. “Intellectual” means developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience, rational. It also means given to study, reflection, and speculation. Individually I understand what each of these words means; the second I use them together as the phrase “public intellectual” the dictionary definitions are meaningless and I become confused. I have a suspicion that public intellectuals are practically of no importance to our society today but before understanding what a public intellectual does or where their place is in society it is first critical to investigate what a public intellectual is.
When a person is private or keeps their ideas private they do not share themselves or their thoughts with others. When a person is public there are many levels that a person can be “public” on. First there is the level of discussing ideas and thoughts with at least one other person. This action would make ideas no longer private, hence, public. Sharing your thoughts with another human being is clearly not enough to make someone public when used as a part of the phrase “public intellectual”.
Next a person can share ideas and thoughts with group of peers who have similar credentials and thoughts. A handful of people will then have been exposed to one persons ideas and those ideas can even be discussed among this group but one persons peers or social networks does still not reach far enough to be considered public. Even if a person publishes a book or article about their ideas, but that book only has a very small circulation among the authors peers, it still is not enough to be considered.
I don’t think that there is a magical number of people that have to be reached or a requirement such as being available at Borders to make one person a public figure. There is some sort of measure though. Oprah is clearly public, so are the president of the United States, the members of the Rolling Stones and the Dali Lama. If you mentioned their names around the country more than a small fraction of the population would know who that person is at the very least.
A person can not be considered public if they are not known on a larger scale than their hometown or high school. They not only need to be well known but they need to be easily accessible to the general population for the purposes of the definition for the “public intellectual”. If these two requirements are not met than for me, a person is clearly not public.
Next is an understanding of the work intellectual. How does a person receive the distinction of being known as an intellectual and who makes those decisions. If formal education was the only indicator of an intellectual than it would be easy to determine who was intellectual. If a person completed a course of study with the necessary grades in their courses to achieve a certain degree and the institution deemed that they had satisfactorily completes their studies they would be considered intellectual. This raises two more problematic issues though. First, is there a certain level of education needed to be considered an intellectual? Is a bachelor’s degree sufficient or is something more required such as a masters of doctorate. The next question that comes into question is the credibility of the institution itself. A person is less likely to be considered an intellectual with a degree from a poorly ranked or incredible institution but degrees from Harvard and Yale may not be necessary either. There is clearly middle ground but the middle ground is often gray and fuzzy and more difficult to determine one way or the other.
If education is clearly not the precise indicator of intellectualism position and training may be more indicative. Intellectualism is required to hold a respected position and to be admired by peers in similar positions. Even a sparkling resume though has its issues. In class we discussed Ann Coulter and her classification by some as a public intellectual based on her credentials as a lawyer and member of a federal judges staff. She is respected by some, but is despised by others because of her clear and unbending bias toward the right end of the ideological spectrum.
If her lack of ability to see past ideology makes her classification as an intellectual problematic then clearly objectiveness is a requirement to be an intellectual. For me then an intellectual is a person who has had some form of legitimate training, whether from an academic institution or from another sort of legitimate training who also possesses the ability to use a factual based objective method to come to their conclusions.
Joining the two definitions to understand the phrase public intellectual still has its own set of issues. Simply joined, my definition of a public intellectual is a person who is widely known and accessible who has been well trained and can think objectively. The next question is what does a public intellectual think objectively about and why should it matter? A public intellectual clearly needs to consider things that are of importance to the general population. The question then becomes what does it mean to be relevant. There are many people in the general population who are unaware of some of the most relevant things facing the world and our country right now. During the Tonight Show with Jay Leno there is a segment where Mr. Leno takes to the streets to ask people walking by on the street question regarding popular news stories. These people often are unaware of the most critical issues such as who are the front-runners in the Democratic Primary.
This example shows that the “people” are largely incapable of deciding what is relevant to them so the burden of deciding what is relevant then falls onto the intellectuals. Theoretically, the intellectuals should not be deciding what to inform the public about but as much as I disagree with them making the decisions, I would hate to see what would happen if the answer was left in the hands of the “people”.
Public Intellectuals are clearly many things to many people and fill many functions. Theoretically they offer wonderful services to the world that are of great importance but currently are a part of a catch 22. Using the world as an example is too large and complicated so for my purposes I will use the example of the United States. As shown above we live in a country where, despite of the nauseating level of media attention and tiring length of the campaigns, there are a significant number of people who cannot even tell you one candidate. We also live in a country where some do know even the most basic details of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.
The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied. NYTIMES
There are also those who do not even know the first three words to the preamble of the Constitution. It is not an obscure document, it is the piece of paper that our country was founded on and that still governs our country. If these are the types of citizens that live in the United States, who do not even care to learn some of the most basic and important facts about our country why would they be interested in taking the time to read a essay by a brilliant member of academia with information they have no interest in and maybe have never heard of.
For public intellectuals and intelligent people everywhere it is truly a catch 22. The people in this country who are not interested in anything of significance are the ones who need to be informed by public intellectuals the most, but they are also the least likely to be interested in reading the work of public intellectuals. In actuality public intellectuals have become obsolete.
When looking at the need for public intellectuals on the scale of the entire world it becomes even more apparent. There are a large number of underdeveloped and war torn countries and it is obvious that any person who does not even know if they will be alive tomorrow will find no use for important academic material.
It is sad to admit that the general population will for the most part ignore intelligent and well-learned members of our society. They have devoted there live to attaining knowledge and probably want to help the country and world move in the right direction, but it may never even help. I can only hope that those who make decisions, such as world leaders, will pay attention to the work of public intellectuals for everyone’s sake.
When a person is private or keeps their ideas private they do not share themselves or their thoughts with others. When a person is public there are many levels that a person can be “public” on. First there is the level of discussing ideas and thoughts with at least one other person. This action would make ideas no longer private, hence, public. Sharing your thoughts with another human being is clearly not enough to make someone public when used as a part of the phrase “public intellectual”.
Next a person can share ideas and thoughts with group of peers who have similar credentials and thoughts. A handful of people will then have been exposed to one persons ideas and those ideas can even be discussed among this group but one persons peers or social networks does still not reach far enough to be considered public. Even if a person publishes a book or article about their ideas, but that book only has a very small circulation among the authors peers, it still is not enough to be considered.
I don’t think that there is a magical number of people that have to be reached or a requirement such as being available at Borders to make one person a public figure. There is some sort of measure though. Oprah is clearly public, so are the president of the United States, the members of the Rolling Stones and the Dali Lama. If you mentioned their names around the country more than a small fraction of the population would know who that person is at the very least.
A person can not be considered public if they are not known on a larger scale than their hometown or high school. They not only need to be well known but they need to be easily accessible to the general population for the purposes of the definition for the “public intellectual”. If these two requirements are not met than for me, a person is clearly not public.
Next is an understanding of the work intellectual. How does a person receive the distinction of being known as an intellectual and who makes those decisions. If formal education was the only indicator of an intellectual than it would be easy to determine who was intellectual. If a person completed a course of study with the necessary grades in their courses to achieve a certain degree and the institution deemed that they had satisfactorily completes their studies they would be considered intellectual. This raises two more problematic issues though. First, is there a certain level of education needed to be considered an intellectual? Is a bachelor’s degree sufficient or is something more required such as a masters of doctorate. The next question that comes into question is the credibility of the institution itself. A person is less likely to be considered an intellectual with a degree from a poorly ranked or incredible institution but degrees from Harvard and Yale may not be necessary either. There is clearly middle ground but the middle ground is often gray and fuzzy and more difficult to determine one way or the other.
If education is clearly not the precise indicator of intellectualism position and training may be more indicative. Intellectualism is required to hold a respected position and to be admired by peers in similar positions. Even a sparkling resume though has its issues. In class we discussed Ann Coulter and her classification by some as a public intellectual based on her credentials as a lawyer and member of a federal judges staff. She is respected by some, but is despised by others because of her clear and unbending bias toward the right end of the ideological spectrum.
If her lack of ability to see past ideology makes her classification as an intellectual problematic then clearly objectiveness is a requirement to be an intellectual. For me then an intellectual is a person who has had some form of legitimate training, whether from an academic institution or from another sort of legitimate training who also possesses the ability to use a factual based objective method to come to their conclusions.
Joining the two definitions to understand the phrase public intellectual still has its own set of issues. Simply joined, my definition of a public intellectual is a person who is widely known and accessible who has been well trained and can think objectively. The next question is what does a public intellectual think objectively about and why should it matter? A public intellectual clearly needs to consider things that are of importance to the general population. The question then becomes what does it mean to be relevant. There are many people in the general population who are unaware of some of the most relevant things facing the world and our country right now. During the Tonight Show with Jay Leno there is a segment where Mr. Leno takes to the streets to ask people walking by on the street question regarding popular news stories. These people often are unaware of the most critical issues such as who are the front-runners in the Democratic Primary.
This example shows that the “people” are largely incapable of deciding what is relevant to them so the burden of deciding what is relevant then falls onto the intellectuals. Theoretically, the intellectuals should not be deciding what to inform the public about but as much as I disagree with them making the decisions, I would hate to see what would happen if the answer was left in the hands of the “people”.
Public Intellectuals are clearly many things to many people and fill many functions. Theoretically they offer wonderful services to the world that are of great importance but currently are a part of a catch 22. Using the world as an example is too large and complicated so for my purposes I will use the example of the United States. As shown above we live in a country where, despite of the nauseating level of media attention and tiring length of the campaigns, there are a significant number of people who cannot even tell you one candidate. We also live in a country where some do know even the most basic details of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.
The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied. NYTIMES
There are also those who do not even know the first three words to the preamble of the Constitution. It is not an obscure document, it is the piece of paper that our country was founded on and that still governs our country. If these are the types of citizens that live in the United States, who do not even care to learn some of the most basic and important facts about our country why would they be interested in taking the time to read a essay by a brilliant member of academia with information they have no interest in and maybe have never heard of.
For public intellectuals and intelligent people everywhere it is truly a catch 22. The people in this country who are not interested in anything of significance are the ones who need to be informed by public intellectuals the most, but they are also the least likely to be interested in reading the work of public intellectuals. In actuality public intellectuals have become obsolete.
When looking at the need for public intellectuals on the scale of the entire world it becomes even more apparent. There are a large number of underdeveloped and war torn countries and it is obvious that any person who does not even know if they will be alive tomorrow will find no use for important academic material.
It is sad to admit that the general population will for the most part ignore intelligent and well-learned members of our society. They have devoted there live to attaining knowledge and probably want to help the country and world move in the right direction, but it may never even help. I can only hope that those who make decisions, such as world leaders, will pay attention to the work of public intellectuals for everyone’s sake.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Goodbye Mitt...
The Washington Post is reporting that Mitt Romney is ending his quest for the Republican nomination.
This means that John McCain is now the unofficial Republican nominee and he will be able to sail smoothly through the remaining primaries and caucuses while stockpiling money and not having the burden of ducking attacks from Romney. McCain will be able to save all of his energy for the general election battle against either Clinton or Obama.
With Romney dropping out the dynamics of the upcoming general election are dramatically changed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to continue to fight to the bitter end, wasting valuable money and good reputations. John McCain on the other hand will not have to deal with a serious opponent.
The Democrats need to take a cue from the Republicans on the art of bowing out of a race to ensure that maximum resources can be utilized for the general. It is not something that Democrats have ever been good at and is not something that either Clinton or Obama will be persuaded to do easily.
Things may be looking up for the GOP.
This means that John McCain is now the unofficial Republican nominee and he will be able to sail smoothly through the remaining primaries and caucuses while stockpiling money and not having the burden of ducking attacks from Romney. McCain will be able to save all of his energy for the general election battle against either Clinton or Obama.
With Romney dropping out the dynamics of the upcoming general election are dramatically changed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to continue to fight to the bitter end, wasting valuable money and good reputations. John McCain on the other hand will not have to deal with a serious opponent.
The Democrats need to take a cue from the Republicans on the art of bowing out of a race to ensure that maximum resources can be utilized for the general. It is not something that Democrats have ever been good at and is not something that either Clinton or Obama will be persuaded to do easily.
Things may be looking up for the GOP.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Vying for Votes
The coupling of technology and political campaigns in the United States has produced large machines that have enabled politicians and their staff to ensure that every voter is hearing what they want. Micro targeting, accurate polling and numerous message outlets allow campaigns to survey the electorate, or segments of the electorate, and utilize feedback to shape messages, appearance schedules and advertisement timing. These strategies allow campaigns to give voters what will appeal to them. Part of shaping the message is reference to the presidency, both past and present. In modern politics, relationships with a presidency are of a utilitarian nature with a constant focus on the upcoming election. Candidates employ a populist strategy where cues from the electorate, or segments of the electorate, are used to inform each candidate’s decision to either distance themselves from or attach themselves to a presidency, or both.
Accurate and ongoing polling techniques have allowed both campaigns and elected officials to have an up to date understanding of the thoughts and opinions of the populace. Presidential favorability polls are taken by numerous sources and give anyone interested in politics the ability to understand what certain demographics, regions of the country and constituencies are thinking all of the time. This technology has made it easy for those running for office and those already in office to change their message based on the poll findings. Without the technology of constant polling it would be difficult to manipulate messages for different segments of society.
Although President George W. Bush is will not be running for the presidency again he has made a habit of making references to President Harry S. Truman in response to his low favorability ratings. According to The Pew Research for People and the Press only 31% of Americans approve of President Bush
In November of 1951 Harry Truman had an approval rating of 23% and since President Bush’s approval ratings have plummeted he has drawn parallels between himself and President Truman. President Bush has been trying to prove the point that history will vindicate him and prove that his decisions in office were indeed good ones, in the same way time proved that President Truman’s decisions during the cold war were sound.
President Bush is consciously pointing out the similarities between himself and President Truman to attempt to sway Americans opinions about him and his actions. It is not a coincidence that President Truman was, like President Bush, Commander in Chief during wartime and became unpopular because of the decisions he was making. If the United States never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and President Bush’s approval ratings had not continued to freefall, he would have no need to draw these comparisons. The historical example of President Truman is an attempt to draw the favor of America and serves no other purpose than that.
In the past few weeks Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. He has run advertisements featuring Caroline Kennedy where she draws parallels between her father and Senator Obama. Senator Obama’s campaign has been largely centered about the need for change in the United States, a message that has proven to be popular with Americans. The endorsement by Caroline Kennedy and the advertisement are critical to continuing the message of change and drawing parallels to President Kennedy who also represented the ideas of change and renewed faith in America.
Like in every campaign, Senator Obama’s team does extensive research to understand how the populace responds to messaging strategies. The success of the “Change” message is doing well because it is coming form a man who seems to represent something different, just as Kennedy did in 1961. Because of the need to please constituents and to reinforce the message, the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is the perfect example to draw on to prove to voters that Senator Obama does represent something new.
President Clinton’s eight years in office ended with a scandal that did not affect his approval ratings by much or tarnish his accomplishments. The scandal did make it hard to believe, for many, that he was a man of genuine family values. This effect had repercussions for his Vice President and Presidential candidate Al Gore, who was a man with real family values. Al Gore wanted to prove to America that he was not the same as President Clinton, so he chose to distance himself from him to accomplish this. In doing this he not only chose to distance himself on the issue of values, but also from the high approval ratings of the Clinton Presidency and the numerous accomplishments the administration had made.
According to Martin P. Wattenberg, “it was Gore’s hope that people would not factor their feeling’s about Clinton’s honesty and morality into their behavior at the polls.” What made relying on hope alone difficult was George W. Bush’s platform of “Restoring Dignity and Honor to the White House”. The Bush campaign’s depiction of George W. Bush as a moral, born again Christian who was aiming at bringing morality back to the White House inevitably made Gore’s campaign more than hope that voters would differentiate Gore from Clinton. Eventually Al Gore did begin to actively push himself away from the Clinton White House, a decision that may have cost him the election.
Ronald Reagan began the modern Conservative Revolution and has since been the Conservative idol of many members of the Republican Party. Because of his status among republicans, President Reagan has been the subject of a vast number of comparisons. Anytime a candidate or elected official wants to prove their conservative credentials they summon the spirit of Ronald Reagan to show how conservative they are.
John McCain utilized this tactic in an advertisement where he tells the story of being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and tapping messages through the wall to fellow prisoners about Ronald Reagan, who was serving as Governor of California at the time. There was also a debate held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in May of 2007. The library’s director said in an interview before the debate that, “All of he candidates are trying to align themselves with Ronald Reagan. We thought, what a great place for them to have a debate”. As long as Ronald Reagan continues to be the conservative standard, idolized by Republicans all around the country, candidates will claim similarities with the former President in an attempt to showcase the conservative values of the candidate or elected official.
For years John McCain was the independent maverick of the Republican Party and frequently came into conflict with the many members of the party and President Bush. He wanted to show voters his independent colors through his opposition to many policies favored by most Republicans. He initially voted against President Bush’s tax cuts and denounced Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance”. These two men were the leaders of the religious right in the United States and were fundamental in mobilizing the evangelical population in support of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. At the time when John McCain was demonstrating his independent tendencies, it was a persona that worked for him. He had the support of moderate republicans and democrats and many independents and continued to find opportunities to illustrate his differences.
Leading up to the 2008 primary this strategy of playing maverick was not helping John McCain gain support among the Republican base, support he would need if he ever wanted to be president. He wanted the support of the Religious Right so much that he made amends with Jerry Farwell, a man who he had previously denounced. He abandoned his former maverick self and as a result lost the support of many moderate and independent people but continued to be scrutinized by religious conservatives, despite having reconciled with one of their leaders. It appeared that either he was lying when he was positioning himself as an independent, or he was insincere in no longer finding fault with the religious right.
During the summer of 2007 John McCain’s flip-flopping began to erode the strength of his campaign. The campaign was low on funding and staff began to flee. The efforts to align himself along the lines of the Bush Presidency were not working well for him. Despite numerous attempts to manipulate his message to show himself as a conservative many people could not and cannot forget all of his previous attempts to push himself away from far right republican ideology. Ann Coulter even vowed to campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain receives the Republican Nomination. It appears that John McCain has done a fantastic job of not embracing the Bush ideology and that cannot be erased from the minds of voters.
As a member of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is usually disagreeing with President Bush, but even politicians who usually have no need to align themselves with the President recognize an opportunity when it comes along. The opportunity involved showing how strong she was in the war on terror. Senator Clinton needed to take advantage of the situation so she could run for President and be perceived to have the same strength and military ability as men running for president.
Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that classified the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. It is still difficult for many to understand why she would vote for this amendment that relied heavily on shaky intelligence. In the context of the 2008 Presidential Election it is clear that it was necessary for Senator Clinton to temporarily align herself with President Bush’s war mongering policies to avoid the assumption that women are too weak to lead the country.
At President Bush’s last State of the Union address, members took advantage of the perfect photo opportunity with the President that would be shown on news networks and in papers all over the country the next day. The members who arrive early to ensure that they have an aisle seat all have different motivations but all are aware that the picture of the President shaking the hands of the select few in the center of the room will be widely published for their constituents to see. Congressman Chris Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, kissed President Bush on the cheek as they were ending their conversation. This kiss was widely discussed and video of the scene was all over the Internet. His demonstration of closeness to the President will be reassurance for his constituents that he is working for them in Washington, but it will also give ammunition to his opponent, who has been attempting to tie him to President Bush at every turn, demonstrating that while there may be benefits to a person showing closeness to the president, others can interpret that closeness as a reason not to support
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas, was also sitting in the center aisle for the opportunistic photo/, despite not being the Presidents biggest fan. Even for members of Congress who have voiced opposition to the Bush White House, all members need to show to their constituents is that they are actually doing their jobs in Washington, DC. A well-documented prime seat at the State of the Union is the perfect way to get this message across.
Republican politicians running in historically blue states and states where President Bush’s favorability is exceptionally low are going to have to differentiate themselves from the President. Senator Susan Collins, the junior Senator for Maine is the perfect example. She has a very moderate, bi-partisan record and even joined the gang of fourteen in 2005 to stop the nomination of conservative judges by President Bush. Despite the factual evidence of her moderate record, her opponent for her seat in 2008, Congressman Tom Allen has not stopped drawing comparisons between Senator Collins and the President based on the shared “R” that appears after their names. Senator Collins will have to continuously show her constituents that she is a different kind of Republican and will need to campaign heavily on her record to halt any similarities between her and the White House.
Campaigns in the United States tend to be electorate and constituent driven. Most choices are framed with knowledge of the electorate’s likes and dislikes. With so much focus on the choices of the populace during election season, the striking difference when a person is elected into office is noticeable. Candidates consider their constituents opinions if the constituents take the time and write their representatives, but once the campaign is over constant polling comes to an end and voter attitudes are no longer continuously evaluated. Lame duck politicians seem to only push their agendas with complete disregard to keeping their constituents appeased. When in office, populism takes on a negative connotation and politicians shun drawing from the wisdom of the people to inform their decisions.
The Polling Report. Web site. 2008. Available from http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm/. Internet. Accessed 25 January 2008.
Benedetto, Richard. “History of Approval Ratings on Bush’s Side for Re-Election.” USA Today. 25 December 2003. Article Online. Available from http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-26-approval-ratings_x.htm/. Internet. Accessed 25 January 2008
Bumiller, Elisabeth. “At West Point, Bush Draws Parallels with Truman.” The New York Times. 28 May 2006. Article Online. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28bush.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Obama ’08. Web site. Available from http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/caroline_ad/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Wattenberg, Martin P. “The Impact of Retiring Presidents on their Parties’ Chances of Retaining the White House.” Presidential Studies Quarterly March 2003: 164-171.
Schneider, Bill. “Politicians Gather to Debate in Reagan’s Shadow.” CNN. 3 May 2007. Article Online. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/schneider.debate/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Bibliography
Althaus, Scott L. “Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People.” Political Communication Vol. 24 (2007): 440-442.
Bowler Shaun and Todd Donovan. “Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America.” Party Politics Vol.12 (2006): 649-669.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Simon Jackman. “Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science Vol. 47 (2003): 853-896.
Schneider, William. “Power of the Polls.” National Journal Vol. 37 (2005): 1188.
Wattenberg, Martin P. “The Impact of Retiring Presidents on their Parties’ Chances of Retaining the White House.” Presidential Studies Quarterly March 2003: 164-171.
Accurate and ongoing polling techniques have allowed both campaigns and elected officials to have an up to date understanding of the thoughts and opinions of the populace. Presidential favorability polls are taken by numerous sources and give anyone interested in politics the ability to understand what certain demographics, regions of the country and constituencies are thinking all of the time. This technology has made it easy for those running for office and those already in office to change their message based on the poll findings. Without the technology of constant polling it would be difficult to manipulate messages for different segments of society.
Although President George W. Bush is will not be running for the presidency again he has made a habit of making references to President Harry S. Truman in response to his low favorability ratings. According to The Pew Research for People and the Press only 31% of Americans approve of President Bush
In November of 1951 Harry Truman had an approval rating of 23% and since President Bush’s approval ratings have plummeted he has drawn parallels between himself and President Truman. President Bush has been trying to prove the point that history will vindicate him and prove that his decisions in office were indeed good ones, in the same way time proved that President Truman’s decisions during the cold war were sound.
President Bush is consciously pointing out the similarities between himself and President Truman to attempt to sway Americans opinions about him and his actions. It is not a coincidence that President Truman was, like President Bush, Commander in Chief during wartime and became unpopular because of the decisions he was making. If the United States never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and President Bush’s approval ratings had not continued to freefall, he would have no need to draw these comparisons. The historical example of President Truman is an attempt to draw the favor of America and serves no other purpose than that.
In the past few weeks Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. He has run advertisements featuring Caroline Kennedy where she draws parallels between her father and Senator Obama. Senator Obama’s campaign has been largely centered about the need for change in the United States, a message that has proven to be popular with Americans. The endorsement by Caroline Kennedy and the advertisement are critical to continuing the message of change and drawing parallels to President Kennedy who also represented the ideas of change and renewed faith in America.
Like in every campaign, Senator Obama’s team does extensive research to understand how the populace responds to messaging strategies. The success of the “Change” message is doing well because it is coming form a man who seems to represent something different, just as Kennedy did in 1961. Because of the need to please constituents and to reinforce the message, the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is the perfect example to draw on to prove to voters that Senator Obama does represent something new.
President Clinton’s eight years in office ended with a scandal that did not affect his approval ratings by much or tarnish his accomplishments. The scandal did make it hard to believe, for many, that he was a man of genuine family values. This effect had repercussions for his Vice President and Presidential candidate Al Gore, who was a man with real family values. Al Gore wanted to prove to America that he was not the same as President Clinton, so he chose to distance himself from him to accomplish this. In doing this he not only chose to distance himself on the issue of values, but also from the high approval ratings of the Clinton Presidency and the numerous accomplishments the administration had made.
According to Martin P. Wattenberg, “it was Gore’s hope that people would not factor their feeling’s about Clinton’s honesty and morality into their behavior at the polls.” What made relying on hope alone difficult was George W. Bush’s platform of “Restoring Dignity and Honor to the White House”. The Bush campaign’s depiction of George W. Bush as a moral, born again Christian who was aiming at bringing morality back to the White House inevitably made Gore’s campaign more than hope that voters would differentiate Gore from Clinton. Eventually Al Gore did begin to actively push himself away from the Clinton White House, a decision that may have cost him the election.
Ronald Reagan began the modern Conservative Revolution and has since been the Conservative idol of many members of the Republican Party. Because of his status among republicans, President Reagan has been the subject of a vast number of comparisons. Anytime a candidate or elected official wants to prove their conservative credentials they summon the spirit of Ronald Reagan to show how conservative they are.
John McCain utilized this tactic in an advertisement where he tells the story of being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and tapping messages through the wall to fellow prisoners about Ronald Reagan, who was serving as Governor of California at the time. There was also a debate held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in May of 2007. The library’s director said in an interview before the debate that, “All of he candidates are trying to align themselves with Ronald Reagan. We thought, what a great place for them to have a debate”. As long as Ronald Reagan continues to be the conservative standard, idolized by Republicans all around the country, candidates will claim similarities with the former President in an attempt to showcase the conservative values of the candidate or elected official.
For years John McCain was the independent maverick of the Republican Party and frequently came into conflict with the many members of the party and President Bush. He wanted to show voters his independent colors through his opposition to many policies favored by most Republicans. He initially voted against President Bush’s tax cuts and denounced Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance”. These two men were the leaders of the religious right in the United States and were fundamental in mobilizing the evangelical population in support of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. At the time when John McCain was demonstrating his independent tendencies, it was a persona that worked for him. He had the support of moderate republicans and democrats and many independents and continued to find opportunities to illustrate his differences.
Leading up to the 2008 primary this strategy of playing maverick was not helping John McCain gain support among the Republican base, support he would need if he ever wanted to be president. He wanted the support of the Religious Right so much that he made amends with Jerry Farwell, a man who he had previously denounced. He abandoned his former maverick self and as a result lost the support of many moderate and independent people but continued to be scrutinized by religious conservatives, despite having reconciled with one of their leaders. It appeared that either he was lying when he was positioning himself as an independent, or he was insincere in no longer finding fault with the religious right.
During the summer of 2007 John McCain’s flip-flopping began to erode the strength of his campaign. The campaign was low on funding and staff began to flee. The efforts to align himself along the lines of the Bush Presidency were not working well for him. Despite numerous attempts to manipulate his message to show himself as a conservative many people could not and cannot forget all of his previous attempts to push himself away from far right republican ideology. Ann Coulter even vowed to campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain receives the Republican Nomination. It appears that John McCain has done a fantastic job of not embracing the Bush ideology and that cannot be erased from the minds of voters.
As a member of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is usually disagreeing with President Bush, but even politicians who usually have no need to align themselves with the President recognize an opportunity when it comes along. The opportunity involved showing how strong she was in the war on terror. Senator Clinton needed to take advantage of the situation so she could run for President and be perceived to have the same strength and military ability as men running for president.
Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that classified the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. It is still difficult for many to understand why she would vote for this amendment that relied heavily on shaky intelligence. In the context of the 2008 Presidential Election it is clear that it was necessary for Senator Clinton to temporarily align herself with President Bush’s war mongering policies to avoid the assumption that women are too weak to lead the country.
At President Bush’s last State of the Union address, members took advantage of the perfect photo opportunity with the President that would be shown on news networks and in papers all over the country the next day. The members who arrive early to ensure that they have an aisle seat all have different motivations but all are aware that the picture of the President shaking the hands of the select few in the center of the room will be widely published for their constituents to see. Congressman Chris Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, kissed President Bush on the cheek as they were ending their conversation. This kiss was widely discussed and video of the scene was all over the Internet. His demonstration of closeness to the President will be reassurance for his constituents that he is working for them in Washington, but it will also give ammunition to his opponent, who has been attempting to tie him to President Bush at every turn, demonstrating that while there may be benefits to a person showing closeness to the president, others can interpret that closeness as a reason not to support
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas, was also sitting in the center aisle for the opportunistic photo/, despite not being the Presidents biggest fan. Even for members of Congress who have voiced opposition to the Bush White House, all members need to show to their constituents is that they are actually doing their jobs in Washington, DC. A well-documented prime seat at the State of the Union is the perfect way to get this message across.
Republican politicians running in historically blue states and states where President Bush’s favorability is exceptionally low are going to have to differentiate themselves from the President. Senator Susan Collins, the junior Senator for Maine is the perfect example. She has a very moderate, bi-partisan record and even joined the gang of fourteen in 2005 to stop the nomination of conservative judges by President Bush. Despite the factual evidence of her moderate record, her opponent for her seat in 2008, Congressman Tom Allen has not stopped drawing comparisons between Senator Collins and the President based on the shared “R” that appears after their names. Senator Collins will have to continuously show her constituents that she is a different kind of Republican and will need to campaign heavily on her record to halt any similarities between her and the White House.
Campaigns in the United States tend to be electorate and constituent driven. Most choices are framed with knowledge of the electorate’s likes and dislikes. With so much focus on the choices of the populace during election season, the striking difference when a person is elected into office is noticeable. Candidates consider their constituents opinions if the constituents take the time and write their representatives, but once the campaign is over constant polling comes to an end and voter attitudes are no longer continuously evaluated. Lame duck politicians seem to only push their agendas with complete disregard to keeping their constituents appeased. When in office, populism takes on a negative connotation and politicians shun drawing from the wisdom of the people to inform their decisions.
The Polling Report. Web site. 2008. Available from http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm/. Internet. Accessed 25 January 2008.
Benedetto, Richard. “History of Approval Ratings on Bush’s Side for Re-Election.” USA Today. 25 December 2003. Article Online. Available from http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-26-approval-ratings_x.htm/. Internet. Accessed 25 January 2008
Bumiller, Elisabeth. “At West Point, Bush Draws Parallels with Truman.” The New York Times. 28 May 2006. Article Online. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28bush.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Obama ’08. Web site. Available from http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/caroline_ad/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Wattenberg, Martin P. “The Impact of Retiring Presidents on their Parties’ Chances of Retaining the White House.” Presidential Studies Quarterly March 2003: 164-171.
Schneider, Bill. “Politicians Gather to Debate in Reagan’s Shadow.” CNN. 3 May 2007. Article Online. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/schneider.debate/. Internet. Accessed January 25 2008.
Bibliography
Althaus, Scott L. “Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People.” Political Communication Vol. 24 (2007): 440-442.
Bowler Shaun and Todd Donovan. “Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America.” Party Politics Vol.12 (2006): 649-669.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Simon Jackman. “Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science Vol. 47 (2003): 853-896.
Schneider, William. “Power of the Polls.” National Journal Vol. 37 (2005): 1188.
Wattenberg, Martin P. “The Impact of Retiring Presidents on their Parties’ Chances of Retaining the White House.” Presidential Studies Quarterly March 2003: 164-171.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Another Reason Spying is not a good idea
So I am unsure if this satellite was used for intelligence related reasons, but for my purposes I am going to assume it was not (at least not all of the time)
This article on MSNBC. com is a perfect example why spying on the citizens of your own country is a vary bad idea. In rare cases the use of satellites for spying may lead to death. Unnecessary and liberty-hating death.
The US government, regardless of who is running it is an incompetent, out of control piece of shit. When this is paired with President Bush's tendency to limit freedom and liberty by spying on US citizens, something is bound to go wrong.
Now a spy satellite is going to loose power and hit the earth possibly killing people. According to a government spokesperson this happens frequently. Interesting.
Here's an idea. Start valuing freedom and liberty and then there will be significantly less situations where a satellite will malfunction and crash into the earth in a fiery blaze of hazardous materials.
This article on MSNBC. com is a perfect example why spying on the citizens of your own country is a vary bad idea. In rare cases the use of satellites for spying may lead to death. Unnecessary and liberty-hating death.
The US government, regardless of who is running it is an incompetent, out of control piece of shit. When this is paired with President Bush's tendency to limit freedom and liberty by spying on US citizens, something is bound to go wrong.
Now a spy satellite is going to loose power and hit the earth possibly killing people. According to a government spokesperson this happens frequently. Interesting.
Here's an idea. Start valuing freedom and liberty and then there will be significantly less situations where a satellite will malfunction and crash into the earth in a fiery blaze of hazardous materials.
Republican Because...
I referenced this in my last blog, so here it is in full.
Ironically this is still on the GOP's website, despite many of these principles being discarded and ignored. Pity.
Ironically this is still on the GOP's website, despite many of these principles being discarded and ignored. Pity.
I'm a Republican Because...
I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.
I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Mabye Huckabee Does Not Have God On His Side
Wonkette picked up a story from the Wall Street Journal and wondered if God had turned on Mike Huckabee.
Joking aside, I am glad his campaign is falling apart. It makes me angry that Huckabee and numerous other candidates claim they are Republican. Apparently he has NEVER looked at the Republican National Committee's Republican Principles. And for that matter, neither have his supporters. If they had taken ten minutes to read the document they would see that one of the principles is
"I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability."
If Governor Huckabee believes this, he never shows it in public. In the past few weeks I have seen numerous quotes regarding AIDS patients and homosexuals which demonstrate anything but what the above principle says. It is really a shame that a politician like Mike Huckabee is allowed to masquerade as a Republican and in turn give all Republicans a bad name.
I for one am happy that another NeoCon's campaign is coming to an end.
Joking aside, I am glad his campaign is falling apart. It makes me angry that Huckabee and numerous other candidates claim they are Republican. Apparently he has NEVER looked at the Republican National Committee's Republican Principles. And for that matter, neither have his supporters. If they had taken ten minutes to read the document they would see that one of the principles is
"I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability."
If Governor Huckabee believes this, he never shows it in public. In the past few weeks I have seen numerous quotes regarding AIDS patients and homosexuals which demonstrate anything but what the above principle says. It is really a shame that a politician like Mike Huckabee is allowed to masquerade as a Republican and in turn give all Republicans a bad name.
I for one am happy that another NeoCon's campaign is coming to an end.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A "not so" Straight Talk Express
In 2000 John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" was received well by voters and the Senators tendency for bucking party lines and marching to the beat of his own drum worked for his maverick persona. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/17/mccain.bus/
Bush clearly brought the straight talk express to a halt. Then, McCain decided to resurrect the bus for the 2008 campaign but left out the straight talk.
As a former McCain supporter in 2000 I admired him for following his instincts and principals weather I agreed with him or not, but in the frenzy of this election season I have only caught glimpses of the former "Maverick" at work. John McCain has effectively broken my heart by becoming a vote courting machine like the rest of the candidates. In the last eight years his advisers must have told him that to be elected he would need to play by party rules and make sure that the base Republicans were happy.
Over last summer his alienation of his former self contributed to the near death of his campaign. The country watched as he went almost bankrupt and lost a few key advisers. He came back to win New Hampshire and seems to be getting back to speaking his mind and remembering his guiding principals.
I can only hope as I search for a politician who exhibits backbone that the coming months will bring back the Straight Talk Express in full force.
Bush clearly brought the straight talk express to a halt. Then, McCain decided to resurrect the bus for the 2008 campaign but left out the straight talk.
As a former McCain supporter in 2000 I admired him for following his instincts and principals weather I agreed with him or not, but in the frenzy of this election season I have only caught glimpses of the former "Maverick" at work. John McCain has effectively broken my heart by becoming a vote courting machine like the rest of the candidates. In the last eight years his advisers must have told him that to be elected he would need to play by party rules and make sure that the base Republicans were happy.
Over last summer his alienation of his former self contributed to the near death of his campaign. The country watched as he went almost bankrupt and lost a few key advisers. He came back to win New Hampshire and seems to be getting back to speaking his mind and remembering his guiding principals.
I can only hope as I search for a politician who exhibits backbone that the coming months will bring back the Straight Talk Express in full force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)