The Chick-fil-A Marriage Controversy: A Matter of Civil Rights or Free Speech?
In the 21st century, the definition of marriage has become political to a degree it never was before. The current controversy surrounding the fast food chain, Chick-fil-A, about its values, has prompted accusations of intolerance and discrimination of the gay community. Gay rights activists have been calling for protests and boycott movements aimed at the company. These activists feel their civil rights are being violated by Chick-fil-A. Moreover, they are worried that the company's stance on traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) propagates intolerance and discrimination of the gay community, in the hearts and minds of our society.
The Chick-fil-A marriage controversy merits our attention because accusations of discrimination, intolerance, and hate, are deadly serious. The shadow of the Holocaust lurks in the minds of people who feel their rights and safety are in jeopardy because they belong to a category (be it religious, ethnic, racial, or in this case, sexual orientation) of people viewed as outside the traditionally accepted in society. We must first match the accusations against the evidence. Then, we can decide for ourselves whether or not Chick-fil-A's promotion of traditional marriage and family violates the rights and safety of the gay community.
Dan Cathy, C.E.O of Chick-fil-A, was interviewed by the Biblical Recorder on July 2, and gave the following responses to questioning about his company's values:
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition
of the family unit”;
“We are a family-owned business, a
family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God
thanks for that”;
“We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the
Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on
biblical principles”.
The above statement was the fire that lit the controversy and the accusations of hate, intolerance, and discrimination. Therefore, we are forced to ask ourselves if the heartfelt belief that the traditional and biblical definition of marriage and the family unit is a message of hate, intolerance, and/or discrimination. Some people think it is.
The Jim Henson Company has announced it will dissolve its partnership with Chick-fil-A by ceasing to have the fast food chain carry its toys with kids' meals. Its facebook page carries the following statement:
"The Jim Henson Co. has celebrated and embraced diversity and
inclusiveness for over 50 years and we have notified Chick-fil-A that we
do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.”
Television actor, Ed Helms (The Office) tweeted, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame." He added,
"Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan."
Prominent politicians have joined in the criticism of Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino opposes Chick-fil-A's plan to open a store in his city. “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel echoed the same sentiment, "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values” he explained "they’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.”
An objective observer must ask if Chick-fil-A has discriminated against sexual orientation in their hiring practices and in their customer service. If they have not done so, than the charges of hate, discrimination, and intolerance, fall flat. If at the end of the day, all we are left with is a First Amendment-protected statement of a company's values, than we must consider the possibility that the threats, protests, and boycotts of Chick-fil-A are an attempt to silence free speech.
Free speech is a hallmark of the freedom of the American people. To silence free speech is a hallmark of Fascism. If the leaders of Chick-fil-A, a large cultural icon, are bullied into silencing their free speech, how can the health of American freedom and democracy be improved? In this country, we have the right to say what we believe. The minute we give up that right, we cease to be Americans.
Jason A.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)
[This post is inspired by the vibrant commentary made to the last post, entitled The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy.]
Gun control is hotly political. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun purchase for a lifetime.
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Jason A.
[This post is inspired by the vibrant commentary made to the last post, entitled The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy.]
Gun control is hotly political. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun purchase for a lifetime.
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Jason A.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy
Everything is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety, security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many Americans had grown up unaccustomed to.
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Jason A.
Everything is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety, security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many Americans had grown up unaccustomed to.
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Jason A.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Is A Non-Partisan Critique Of President Obama Possible?
Answer: Yes, Overwhelmingly So.
It does not take a partisan to notice glaring deficiencies in President Barack Obama's leadership. Comparisons and contrasts between Obama and Bush are all too common these days. Such exercises are quite limited in their effectiveness because they take the measure of leaders from opposing parties. Democrats try to deflect criticism of their hero by saying things like, "Bush did it too" or "Obama has had to clean up Bush's mess." From the defensive, Republicans are compelled to respond with something like, "At least Bush didn't...(fill in the blank)" or "Ronald Reagan would have...(fill in the blank)." The net result is that undecided observers are sitting back watching two teams throw their own heroes in each others' faces.
Partisan posturing is business as usual; it has nothing to do with the president's declining strength with the electorate. There are deeper reasons why President Obama's re-election chances are in jeopardy. The leading national polls have the president and his challenger at a dead-heat, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney gaining ground among groups the Democrats have always considered safely in their pocket, especially single women. For an incumbent president to be neck-and-neck with his challenger by July of an election year is a portent of defeat for the sitting president. After all, President Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan this time in 1980, and he still lost in November.
Why is President Obama's re-election in trouble? The simplest answer is that no president in living memory has been re-elected with unemployment above eight percent. When this is combined with growing tensions in the Middle East (with Iran threatening to spike oil prices by closing the Strait of Hormuz) and an ever-aggressive China, which has recently stolen military secrets by hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems (to name a few examples in which the public perception of the president's leadership is coming to be seen as lacking) a landslide November defeat for President Obama is not implausible at this point in the campaign season. This is not to mention the hotly controversial health care reform -which stands as the president's most famous achievement - an achievement which will likely be repealed if the Republicans recapture the presidency and a majority in the U.S. Senate this November, regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding it.
Many voters may not understand abstract political concepts like "conservatism" or "liberalism", but they know the difference between success and failure when they see it. Presidents usually accomplish more in their first (not their second) term. It is one thing to try and measure how President Obama's leadership stacks up against his Republican predecessors. Yet, as I mentioned above, to do so can easily be tarnished with charges of partisan bias. But what happens when President Obama's leadership is measured up against his Democratic presidential predecessors, chiefly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK)? Since FDR's unwavering belief in the use of government to better the social welfare of the people bares closer relation to Obama's ideology, let us begin with his accomplishments.
During the Great Depression, FDR (years in office 1933 - 1945) restored confidence in the nation's banking system by ensuring depositors' money through the creation of F.D.I.C (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Thanks to this reform, we can all feel safe that the money we put in the bank does not get wiped out when the bank spends it. FDR created several million "shovel-ready" jobs through the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and several other agencies. He created four million jobs between the fall and spring of 1934 - 1935 alone! Think of all the family members those jobs saved from starvation in that term!
After being confronted with the failure of his "stimulus" programs, President Obama laughingly joked, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we thought." Over the years, FDR's critics claim that he failed to bring unemployment below single-digits until the onset of the Second World War. Nevertheless, he brought it down from 25 per cent to the neighborhood of 12 per cent, and the millions employed by the relief agencies were counted in that figure. If we exclude them, biographers Jean Edward Smith and Conrad Black tell us, real unemployment may have been as low as 6 per cent! There was a reason FDR was re-elected to the presidency three more times (each time receiving a vote by the future Republican president, Ronald Reagan).
FDR's foreign policy achievements include victory of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the Second World War and the sponsoring of the Bretton Woods agreement, which tied the world's major currencies to the U.S. dollar. This made America the world's largest creditor nation for nearly thirty years following the death of FDR. For those who want to point out that FDR had twelve years to accomplish these things, it must be pointed out that in JFK's presidency (1961 -1963: totaling around two years and eleven months), taxes were cut; the economy turned around from a recession; and nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba was averted.
After nearly four years, President Obama presides over a stagnant economy; a public in turmoil over the uncertainties unleashed by his health care reform; and few foreign policy achievements aside from the killing of top Al-Qaeda leaders (resulting from intelligence-gathering methods the president has staunchly opposed). Furthermore, many Americans do not see how the president's policy of toppling Libya's Muammar Qadaffi has benefited American interests.
In sum, a non-partisan observer with an eye for historical analogies to the present, has to look hard to find a solid record of major, positive achievement in President Obama's first term. This observer would be very interested in being proven wrong - an honest observer would have it no other way.
Jason A.
Answer: Yes, Overwhelmingly So.
It does not take a partisan to notice glaring deficiencies in President Barack Obama's leadership. Comparisons and contrasts between Obama and Bush are all too common these days. Such exercises are quite limited in their effectiveness because they take the measure of leaders from opposing parties. Democrats try to deflect criticism of their hero by saying things like, "Bush did it too" or "Obama has had to clean up Bush's mess." From the defensive, Republicans are compelled to respond with something like, "At least Bush didn't...(fill in the blank)" or "Ronald Reagan would have...(fill in the blank)." The net result is that undecided observers are sitting back watching two teams throw their own heroes in each others' faces.
Partisan posturing is business as usual; it has nothing to do with the president's declining strength with the electorate. There are deeper reasons why President Obama's re-election chances are in jeopardy. The leading national polls have the president and his challenger at a dead-heat, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney gaining ground among groups the Democrats have always considered safely in their pocket, especially single women. For an incumbent president to be neck-and-neck with his challenger by July of an election year is a portent of defeat for the sitting president. After all, President Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan this time in 1980, and he still lost in November.
Why is President Obama's re-election in trouble? The simplest answer is that no president in living memory has been re-elected with unemployment above eight percent. When this is combined with growing tensions in the Middle East (with Iran threatening to spike oil prices by closing the Strait of Hormuz) and an ever-aggressive China, which has recently stolen military secrets by hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems (to name a few examples in which the public perception of the president's leadership is coming to be seen as lacking) a landslide November defeat for President Obama is not implausible at this point in the campaign season. This is not to mention the hotly controversial health care reform -which stands as the president's most famous achievement - an achievement which will likely be repealed if the Republicans recapture the presidency and a majority in the U.S. Senate this November, regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding it.
Many voters may not understand abstract political concepts like "conservatism" or "liberalism", but they know the difference between success and failure when they see it. Presidents usually accomplish more in their first (not their second) term. It is one thing to try and measure how President Obama's leadership stacks up against his Republican predecessors. Yet, as I mentioned above, to do so can easily be tarnished with charges of partisan bias. But what happens when President Obama's leadership is measured up against his Democratic presidential predecessors, chiefly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK)? Since FDR's unwavering belief in the use of government to better the social welfare of the people bares closer relation to Obama's ideology, let us begin with his accomplishments.
During the Great Depression, FDR (years in office 1933 - 1945) restored confidence in the nation's banking system by ensuring depositors' money through the creation of F.D.I.C (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Thanks to this reform, we can all feel safe that the money we put in the bank does not get wiped out when the bank spends it. FDR created several million "shovel-ready" jobs through the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and several other agencies. He created four million jobs between the fall and spring of 1934 - 1935 alone! Think of all the family members those jobs saved from starvation in that term!
After being confronted with the failure of his "stimulus" programs, President Obama laughingly joked, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we thought." Over the years, FDR's critics claim that he failed to bring unemployment below single-digits until the onset of the Second World War. Nevertheless, he brought it down from 25 per cent to the neighborhood of 12 per cent, and the millions employed by the relief agencies were counted in that figure. If we exclude them, biographers Jean Edward Smith and Conrad Black tell us, real unemployment may have been as low as 6 per cent! There was a reason FDR was re-elected to the presidency three more times (each time receiving a vote by the future Republican president, Ronald Reagan).
FDR's foreign policy achievements include victory of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the Second World War and the sponsoring of the Bretton Woods agreement, which tied the world's major currencies to the U.S. dollar. This made America the world's largest creditor nation for nearly thirty years following the death of FDR. For those who want to point out that FDR had twelve years to accomplish these things, it must be pointed out that in JFK's presidency (1961 -1963: totaling around two years and eleven months), taxes were cut; the economy turned around from a recession; and nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba was averted.
After nearly four years, President Obama presides over a stagnant economy; a public in turmoil over the uncertainties unleashed by his health care reform; and few foreign policy achievements aside from the killing of top Al-Qaeda leaders (resulting from intelligence-gathering methods the president has staunchly opposed). Furthermore, many Americans do not see how the president's policy of toppling Libya's Muammar Qadaffi has benefited American interests.
In sum, a non-partisan observer with an eye for historical analogies to the present, has to look hard to find a solid record of major, positive achievement in President Obama's first term. This observer would be very interested in being proven wrong - an honest observer would have it no other way.
Jason A.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Why Should I Care About Local Politics?
I know what you're thinking. Superior Court - State Court - these topics are a recipe for some serious eye-glaze. I mean, we never took a class to teach us about these things. Our high school courses in American history and American government taught us about national politics. I think we can all remember learning something about the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of us only remember the words "Supreme" and "Court" and that the two words were combined to mean something very important. None of us like going to court, but the thought of going before the SUPREME court sounds terrifying! After all, it is a court and it is supreme! But do not worry, the majority of us will never do anything in our daily lives that will put us before the U.S. Supreme Court. When we mess up, or when someone else messes us up, it's the state and local courts we have to deal with. Therein lies the importance, if not the excitement, of local politics.
Yes, these officials are the people who handle all the D.U.I., childhood services, and all the other cases impacting you, your friends, and everyone else in the neighborhood. Even if you are not dragged through the system for committing (or being accused of) any offenses, you are a taxpayer whose dollars - yes, your money- is impacted by the volume of cases court officials (bailiffs and everyone else) have to see. It follows that if any candidates for office in your state and county court system propose a plan to improve court efficiency - this means to reduce the number of speeding ticket and other small offense cases your money has to provide overhead to - it may be worth your while to come out and hear the candidates speak, as I did at the primary debate at the Cherokee County Republican Headquarters in Georgia last night. By the way, since judges are supposed to be non-partisan, the "republican" factor was, for the most part, downplayed.
When you decide to go to an event like this, take notes, as I did. It is the only way you can keep anything straight because, let's face it, you've never heard of any of these people before. You are trying to form impressions about them while they are flooding you with information about their resume, their upbringing, their values, their reform proposals, and fifteen other things. Fox and CNN do not keep us informed about Mark Shriver and his opponent David Cannon Jr., rivals for a spot on the Superior Court (District 7) responsible for the counties of northwest Georgia. We also never get to hear about Jeff Rusbridge and his opponent for State Court Judge, Michelle Homier. Yet, no matter who wins these races, our lives and the lives of our children will be impacted by the winner of each race.
How will you know who to vote for? First, you must go to an event and find out who the candidates are otherwise, on election day, you will scroll down your ballot and not recognize the names of anyone after you've made your choice for president and the other famous people. Second, you must take notes because you will soon discover that the candidates have very similar qualifications and some of the same reform proposals. Last night, one proposal that came up repeatedly was for a drug accountability court to be created. Cherokee County is the only Atlanta-metropolitan county without one. I distinctly recall Michelle Homier and Mark Shriver (in different races) voicing their support for a drug accountability court. These candidates believe that such a court would be a better alternative in reducing the number of drug-dependencies, reducing the number of crimes committed because of them, and increasing the number of lives saved in the war on drugs, than by continuing the current custom of simply locking these people up for a period of time without addressing the underlying cause and then releasing them to repeat the same crime and racking up the costs for the public, both human and financial. I am not suggesting Cannon and Rusbridge would not support a drug accountability court. If they said so last night, it didn't make it in my notes.
With similarities such as this, how will you know who to vote for? As I watched the debates, I noticed a number of differences, many of them minor, but still affecting my vote. However, one difference shot out at me like a laser beam! When the event ended, one candidate, Michelle Homier, came and introduced herself to me. She had no idea who I was. I could have been a journalist, an auto mechanic, or someone from any walk of life. It turned out she was talking to a small-time teacher, but she was unfazed. She and her husband proceeded to chat with me for the next forty-five or so minutes. They openly discussed with me who they are, what they stand for, why Michelle is running. We were still talking in the parking lot after the headquarters was locked and everyone else left. Mrs. Homier and her husband, Tony, made me feel like a valued participant in the civic affairs of my county. They talked with me as a peer. I detected no condescension or arrogance in their demeanor. The impression I got was that they are running a people-focused campaign, as opposed to a legal-elite, money-focused campaign. This is not to suggest Jeff Rusbridge is any less qualified for State Court Judge - but the fact remains - I didn't get to meet Jeff Rusbridge to learn more about his campaign.
Face-to-face contact with the voters is powerful in politics. Michelle Homier has this as a strength. Perhaps this is what defines local politics from national politics. Chances are, I will never get to have a forty-five minute conversation with the president of the United States. He may never learn of my existence. But my state and local officials will. They can talk with me and learn about my concerns for the way things are run in my hometown. Never, will you feel more valued as a civic participant than when you recognize and appreciate the importance of local politics.
Jason A.
I know what you're thinking. Superior Court - State Court - these topics are a recipe for some serious eye-glaze. I mean, we never took a class to teach us about these things. Our high school courses in American history and American government taught us about national politics. I think we can all remember learning something about the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of us only remember the words "Supreme" and "Court" and that the two words were combined to mean something very important. None of us like going to court, but the thought of going before the SUPREME court sounds terrifying! After all, it is a court and it is supreme! But do not worry, the majority of us will never do anything in our daily lives that will put us before the U.S. Supreme Court. When we mess up, or when someone else messes us up, it's the state and local courts we have to deal with. Therein lies the importance, if not the excitement, of local politics.
Yes, these officials are the people who handle all the D.U.I., childhood services, and all the other cases impacting you, your friends, and everyone else in the neighborhood. Even if you are not dragged through the system for committing (or being accused of) any offenses, you are a taxpayer whose dollars - yes, your money- is impacted by the volume of cases court officials (bailiffs and everyone else) have to see. It follows that if any candidates for office in your state and county court system propose a plan to improve court efficiency - this means to reduce the number of speeding ticket and other small offense cases your money has to provide overhead to - it may be worth your while to come out and hear the candidates speak, as I did at the primary debate at the Cherokee County Republican Headquarters in Georgia last night. By the way, since judges are supposed to be non-partisan, the "republican" factor was, for the most part, downplayed.
When you decide to go to an event like this, take notes, as I did. It is the only way you can keep anything straight because, let's face it, you've never heard of any of these people before. You are trying to form impressions about them while they are flooding you with information about their resume, their upbringing, their values, their reform proposals, and fifteen other things. Fox and CNN do not keep us informed about Mark Shriver and his opponent David Cannon Jr., rivals for a spot on the Superior Court (District 7) responsible for the counties of northwest Georgia. We also never get to hear about Jeff Rusbridge and his opponent for State Court Judge, Michelle Homier. Yet, no matter who wins these races, our lives and the lives of our children will be impacted by the winner of each race.
How will you know who to vote for? First, you must go to an event and find out who the candidates are otherwise, on election day, you will scroll down your ballot and not recognize the names of anyone after you've made your choice for president and the other famous people. Second, you must take notes because you will soon discover that the candidates have very similar qualifications and some of the same reform proposals. Last night, one proposal that came up repeatedly was for a drug accountability court to be created. Cherokee County is the only Atlanta-metropolitan county without one. I distinctly recall Michelle Homier and Mark Shriver (in different races) voicing their support for a drug accountability court. These candidates believe that such a court would be a better alternative in reducing the number of drug-dependencies, reducing the number of crimes committed because of them, and increasing the number of lives saved in the war on drugs, than by continuing the current custom of simply locking these people up for a period of time without addressing the underlying cause and then releasing them to repeat the same crime and racking up the costs for the public, both human and financial. I am not suggesting Cannon and Rusbridge would not support a drug accountability court. If they said so last night, it didn't make it in my notes.
With similarities such as this, how will you know who to vote for? As I watched the debates, I noticed a number of differences, many of them minor, but still affecting my vote. However, one difference shot out at me like a laser beam! When the event ended, one candidate, Michelle Homier, came and introduced herself to me. She had no idea who I was. I could have been a journalist, an auto mechanic, or someone from any walk of life. It turned out she was talking to a small-time teacher, but she was unfazed. She and her husband proceeded to chat with me for the next forty-five or so minutes. They openly discussed with me who they are, what they stand for, why Michelle is running. We were still talking in the parking lot after the headquarters was locked and everyone else left. Mrs. Homier and her husband, Tony, made me feel like a valued participant in the civic affairs of my county. They talked with me as a peer. I detected no condescension or arrogance in their demeanor. The impression I got was that they are running a people-focused campaign, as opposed to a legal-elite, money-focused campaign. This is not to suggest Jeff Rusbridge is any less qualified for State Court Judge - but the fact remains - I didn't get to meet Jeff Rusbridge to learn more about his campaign.
Face-to-face contact with the voters is powerful in politics. Michelle Homier has this as a strength. Perhaps this is what defines local politics from national politics. Chances are, I will never get to have a forty-five minute conversation with the president of the United States. He may never learn of my existence. But my state and local officials will. They can talk with me and learn about my concerns for the way things are run in my hometown. Never, will you feel more valued as a civic participant than when you recognize and appreciate the importance of local politics.
Jason A.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Can We Have A Third Party?
[This post was inspired by a comment from a friend left on July 12th's post "What If I Don't Vote? (Part 1)"]
Answer: No, if we are being asked if three parties can have a REAL share in governmental power.
Some people notice that countries like Germany and Israel have several different political parties that make a difference in governance, and then they notice the U.S.A. has only two: the Democrats and Republicans. This begs the question, "Can there be a third option?"
The American political system is not designed in such a way to make this possible. The Founding Fathers did not want us to have ANY political parties - period - let alone three! It is theoretically possible that a new party could emerge and supplant either the Democratic or Republican party but, like the Dark Lords of the Sith (for my Star Wars friends), there can only be two.
So, if the Founders didn't want any, how did we end up with two? Unlike the governments of Germany and Israel, our system does not allocate seats in Congress to political parties. Since seats are up-for-grabs, you end up with two sides of a coin. One side is the people who WON those seats. The other side is the people who LOST in the election for those seats. The people who WON are the ones with an ideological bent that was popular with the electors at the time of their election. The people who LOST are the ones who have to wait until their time is ripe. This circumstance played itself out as soon as our federal government under the U.S. Constitution took effect in 1789.
What quickly played out under the Founders' noses was a situation where there was a RULING faction and an OPPOSITION faction. The initial ruling faction was the Federalists and the initial opposing faction was the Jefferson-Republicans. After a few elections, these two factions had to switch places; the Jeff-Reps became the rulers and the Federalists became the opposition. Those two factions no longer exist. Over time, they morphed into larger, more organized entities that came to be called political parties.
As I mentioned earlier, there is always two. Initially, it was the Federalists vs. the Jefferson - Republicans. Later, it was the Whigs vs. the Democrats and, finally, the Republicans vs. the Democrats. Over time a new one supplants an old one (like how Darth Vader supplanted Count Dooku, or how Luke Skywalker would have supplanted either Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine if he had turned to the dark side) but there can never be more than two sharing power at a time.
But Jason, what about parties like Ralph Nader's Green Party or the various socialist parties that exist or once existed? Those parties exist because they have as much legal right to exist as the Republicans or Democrats, but they do not have enough strength in numbers or organization to supplant the big two. Small parties usually focus on limited and specific goals. The Green Party promoted fund-raising for, and awareness of, environmental causes.
Okay, well, what of the various 'independent' officials in Congress? Do they make a difference? Their biggest handicap is that they are 'independent.' Often, we hear about independents who are outcasts from one of the big two. Senator Joe Lieberman was a life-long Democrat, but lost his party's renomination to a primary challenger in 2006 (possibly because he sided with Republican causes so many times over the years. In fact, though he serves as an Independent, Lieberman is still a registered Democrat.) He had already been in the Senate for so long that he had enough popularity with Connecticut voters to keep his seat.
Congressional Independents make the most difference during tough votes that require compromises between the two parties. Independents are in a position to 'cross the aisle' and reconcile the leaders of both sides to come to a compromise.
For all these various ways, the American political system is a two-party system and will never become a multi-party system. Small parties and various grass-roots movements spring up from time to time and exert an influence on one or both of the big two. Currently, the Tea Party Patriots (more of a movement than a party) exerts a strong influence on the Republican party. A century ago, the big two were simultaneously influenced by the Progressive movement. This is perhaps the best way small parties and movements can influence major policy.
Jason A.
Next Blog Has Not Yet Been Determined
[This post was inspired by a comment from a friend left on July 12th's post "What If I Don't Vote? (Part 1)"]
Answer: No, if we are being asked if three parties can have a REAL share in governmental power.
Some people notice that countries like Germany and Israel have several different political parties that make a difference in governance, and then they notice the U.S.A. has only two: the Democrats and Republicans. This begs the question, "Can there be a third option?"
The American political system is not designed in such a way to make this possible. The Founding Fathers did not want us to have ANY political parties - period - let alone three! It is theoretically possible that a new party could emerge and supplant either the Democratic or Republican party but, like the Dark Lords of the Sith (for my Star Wars friends), there can only be two.
So, if the Founders didn't want any, how did we end up with two? Unlike the governments of Germany and Israel, our system does not allocate seats in Congress to political parties. Since seats are up-for-grabs, you end up with two sides of a coin. One side is the people who WON those seats. The other side is the people who LOST in the election for those seats. The people who WON are the ones with an ideological bent that was popular with the electors at the time of their election. The people who LOST are the ones who have to wait until their time is ripe. This circumstance played itself out as soon as our federal government under the U.S. Constitution took effect in 1789.
What quickly played out under the Founders' noses was a situation where there was a RULING faction and an OPPOSITION faction. The initial ruling faction was the Federalists and the initial opposing faction was the Jefferson-Republicans. After a few elections, these two factions had to switch places; the Jeff-Reps became the rulers and the Federalists became the opposition. Those two factions no longer exist. Over time, they morphed into larger, more organized entities that came to be called political parties.
As I mentioned earlier, there is always two. Initially, it was the Federalists vs. the Jefferson - Republicans. Later, it was the Whigs vs. the Democrats and, finally, the Republicans vs. the Democrats. Over time a new one supplants an old one (like how Darth Vader supplanted Count Dooku, or how Luke Skywalker would have supplanted either Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine if he had turned to the dark side) but there can never be more than two sharing power at a time.
But Jason, what about parties like Ralph Nader's Green Party or the various socialist parties that exist or once existed? Those parties exist because they have as much legal right to exist as the Republicans or Democrats, but they do not have enough strength in numbers or organization to supplant the big two. Small parties usually focus on limited and specific goals. The Green Party promoted fund-raising for, and awareness of, environmental causes.
Okay, well, what of the various 'independent' officials in Congress? Do they make a difference? Their biggest handicap is that they are 'independent.' Often, we hear about independents who are outcasts from one of the big two. Senator Joe Lieberman was a life-long Democrat, but lost his party's renomination to a primary challenger in 2006 (possibly because he sided with Republican causes so many times over the years. In fact, though he serves as an Independent, Lieberman is still a registered Democrat.) He had already been in the Senate for so long that he had enough popularity with Connecticut voters to keep his seat.
Congressional Independents make the most difference during tough votes that require compromises between the two parties. Independents are in a position to 'cross the aisle' and reconcile the leaders of both sides to come to a compromise.
For all these various ways, the American political system is a two-party system and will never become a multi-party system. Small parties and various grass-roots movements spring up from time to time and exert an influence on one or both of the big two. Currently, the Tea Party Patriots (more of a movement than a party) exerts a strong influence on the Republican party. A century ago, the big two were simultaneously influenced by the Progressive movement. This is perhaps the best way small parties and movements can influence major policy.
Jason A.
Next Blog Has Not Yet Been Determined
Sunday, July 15, 2012
What If I Don't Vote? (Part 2)
(This post is a continuation from "What If I Don't Vote? (Part 1) posted July 12th.)
The last post dealt mainly with the potential consequences of not voting. This post will instead focus on some of the remaining questions raised in part 1 and it will address some of the commentary made from that post. These questions reflect some of the key dilemmas people struggle with when they are wondering whether or not it is even worth their time to go to the polling station on election day.
What if I don't like any of the candidates?
Some people don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. There can only be one choice right? Election seasons begin with a whole pool of candidates, and these candidates are then weeded out in the primaries, and on election day you are left with only two to choose from. Often, your favorite was wiped out back in the primary. In '08, Clinton fans were gravely disappointed when they were left with Obama to go against McCain. Similarly, in '12, Gingrich and Santorum fans are annoyed that Romney has been rendered the choice to oppose Obama in November. It's bad enough that you don't like the opposing party's candidate, but now you're in a position of disliking the one your supposed to vote for to kick out the other one. How's that for pumping up your excitement for election day?
Always, when we come up against things that deflate our enthusiasm for a cause, it is time to go back to the drawing board and re-examine our cause. Politics is the art of the possible. This means we can't have it all the way we want. We need to give a little to get a little. If we can't have our hero, this doesn't mean we can't have our cause. Since the presidency is national, let's use that as the example. Now that we know for sure that the next president will be either Obama or Romney, our choice has been made easier than it was back in the primary. Take a closer look at the stated claims and the record (governmental and non-governmental) of leadership exhibited by the two candidates throughout their professional careers. After all, a candidate can not hide from his or her past; it is objective. But what if their records show blemishes, even similar ones? From this feeling, you may find yourself in the depressing thought of having to choose between "the lesser of the two evils."
How do I know the "lesser of the two evils?"
The more I study politics and history, the more I see differences between candidates for office. Often, the opposing politicians begin to sound remarkably like each other when they are trying to 'shoot for the middle'. Have you ever noticed that candidates sound the most similar when times are good? For example, back in 2000, the economy was coming to the end of a long boom period (except the IT bubble burst that year, hurting many stocks). There hadn't been much war for a while (except for NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, and some other small-scale adventures). The deficit was in the best shape in a long time and the government was running budget surpluses. And in these calm waters, we had the most bland presidential election season in a long time. That is because in times such as those, candidates are very careful to reassure the voters that they will continue "what works." So, we had to choose between Gore and Bush - two candidates of laid-back temperament that tended to bore audiences in interviews and debates. Things didn't even begin to get interesting until election night, when the ballot-counting fiasco erupted in Florida, spinning the outcome of the election in doubt.
And yet, if you had looked below the surface and examined the stated beliefs and records of the opposing candidates, glaring differences would have come to light. For one, Al Gore had been an aggressive promoter of environmental regulations, whereas this was not as much an issue for Bush. Bush, on the other hand, claimed that the Clinton/Gore administration had gutted the personnel and technical strength of the military and that a Bush presidency would reverse this. Examples such as these show major differences between two (even bland) candidates.
In the tougher times our country is facing today (spiraling public debt; high unemployment; a highly-controversial health care reform; a flagging war in Afghanistan; revolutions breaking out across the middle east; Iran plowing full-speed ahead in weapons-grade uranium enrichment while threatening to spike world oil prices) the positions (and therefore the choice) between the opposing candidates has never been starker in an election year. If the Obamacare law is consistent with your view of what is best for our health care system, you know Obama will sustain it, but Romney has promised to repeal it. If you feel that our military mission in Afghanistan needs to end soon at all costs, Obama is your man. On the contrary, Romney has vowed to continue the mission until a stable, non-terroristic regime is safely in place there. These are only a few examples, but if you have a cause that will motivate you to cast a vote, it should not be difficult to figure out whether or not your cause will be helped or hurt by the outcome of this November's election. If you base your vote on an informed summation of the two choices, you will never feel like you are choosing between "two evils."
What if, after the election, I end up disappointed with my choice?
What happens if the candidate you vote for actually wins and ends up a disappointment as president (or senator, or congressman, the point is the same)? If you vote for an elected official who turns out to be your worst nightmare, isn't it your fault it came to be that way? Even if you come to regret your choice, your guilt will disappear if you remember that when you went to the polling station, "He seemed like a good choice based on what I was thinking and feeling at the time." No one casts a vote thinking, "Yeah, I'm voting for my worst nightmare! I can't wait to buckle up and ride this rollercoaster for the next four years!" On the contrary, a regretted choice is a beautiful opportunity to go back to the drawing board, re-examine the cause, and decide how you can make a better-informed choice next time. This will deepen your political convictions and your appreciation for our electoral system.
Added to all these dilemmas is the savaging competing politicians do to each others' character in the media. "Don't vote for that guy, he will bring an end to America as we know it!" How would you like to have that hang over your conscience? You wouldn't. Better to stay home election day and let the chips fall where they may, right? Isn't that the higher, wiser road? This leads us to the next major question.
How about non-voting as a form of political activism or protest? Shouldn't this send a message to the powers-that-be that 'we the people' are fed up with all their shenanigans (that word is so much fun to use)?
All I can gather from non-voting is that by staying home on election day, you would be shrinking the electorate. If enough people do this over time, representation will be concentrated in ever-fewer hands. Consequently, the powers-that-be will become less and less in touch with the desires of 'we the people.' The potential for tyranny will be greatly enhanced and the non-voting movement will have achieved precisely the opposite of what it was meant to accomplish. You can never have a voice by silencing your voice.
Jason A.
Next Blog Will Be: Can We Have A Third Party?
Thursday, July 12, 2012
What If I Don't Vote? (Part 1)
Aged thirty-one years at the time of this writing, I have been old enough to vote since the election of 2000. In every election, then and since, I always hear friends (different ones) say they are not interested in voting either because they do not think their vote counts (see my July 10th posting entitled "Does My Vote Really Count?" for an explanation of how your vote really does count) or that it doesn't matter who the next president is because presidents are all the same (see my July 9th posting entitled "Does It Really Matter Who The Next President Is?" for an explanation of how it really does matter who the next president is).
Some people don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. From this feeling, it follows that they think voting is only a choice between "the lesser of two evils." And what happens if the candidate they vote for actually wins and ends up a disappointment as president (or senator, or congressman, the point is the same)? If you vote for an elected official who turns out to be your worst nightmare, isn't it your fault it came to be that way? Added to all these dilemmas is the savaging competing politicians do to each others' character in the media. "Don't vote for that guy, he will bring an end to America as we know it!" How would you like to have that hang over your conscience? You wouldn't. Better to stay home election day and let the chips fall where they may, right? Isn't that the higher, wiser road?
Suppose you choose not to vote based on any or all the reasons above, the next question to ask is, "What happens as a consequence if I don't vote?" Simply put, if you don't vote, you are leaving the fate of the country in the hands of other voters. You are trusting that their wisdom is greater than yours. What if they elect leaders who turn out to be rattlesnakes? What if they elect leaders who rule without regard to the U.S. Constitution? Indeed, what if they elect leaders who create laws that violate the U.S. Constitution? What if they elect leaders who pass amendments that change the U.S. Constitution so that it no longer resembles the U.S. Constitution? Could it ever happen in America? Many people in Germany thought it could never happen there, in the election of 1932. Why should they have worried about it? They lived in a democracy, right? Better to stay home and let the chips fall where they may.
In 1932, Adolf Hitler's Nazi party became the largest party in Germany's parliament (equivalent to the U.S. Congress). The Nazis did not seize power by force - they won it in a free election! German tradition held that the leader of the largest party in parliament had a claim to be appointed chancellor. (In their system, they had a president and a chancellor). President Paul Hindenburg (not a fan of Hitler) felt compelled to appoint Hitler as the country's chancellor. The president was a very old man, some say he was senile. Under his nose, Chancellor Hitler appointed Nazis to take over all the country's police and security forces. After only a year in power, Hitler abolished the presidency (following the natural-cause death of old Hindenburg) and made himself the ruler of Germany under a new title - Fuhrer of the Reich. Hitler never bothered to write a new constitution for Germany, he simply ignored the old one. He proceeded to change the laws of the country. People's civil rights were stripped away from. Those Hitler deemed enemies were jailed or killed. Within twelve years, his Nazi party was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the world.
Try to imagine yourself as a German citizen who chose not to vote in 1932. You trusted the wisdom of others and left your fate in their hands. Could something as frightening as the Nazi example happen in America? You bet it could. Why? Because a democracy is only as good as the people entrusted to run it. If we elect good leaders, our democracy will be good. If we elect monsters, our democracy will be ripped to shreds.
You might be thinking, "This is all well and good, Jason. But how do I know I can make the right choice in an election?" You can make the right choice by voting for people who claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution. How will you know this? You will know it in the language they use when they talk about what guides their decision-making. If they never (or rarely) mention the U.S. Constitution, it is a red flag. (In the years before he came to power, Adolf Hitler never pretended he would uphold Germany's constitution. In his televised speeches, he made it clear that a vote for the Nazis was a vote for dictatorship. He promised to outlaw all political parties if his Nazis were elected.)
If politicians do not invoke the constitution and instead use high-flown language like, "we are going to expand social security to cover more people" or "we are going to make sure health insurance companies do not deny people for pre-existing conditions", this is all well and fine - but do not ever think it is more important than enforcing the U.S. Constitution. Once we lose the constitution we are doomed!
Your vote is your power to keep our democracy functioning. You have the right not to vote. But exercising that right will never improve the democracy we have. Without your vote, it will only wilt and die, like a flower denied water to sustain it. The haunting example of Nazi Germany will always be before us because it is an example of democracy being used in order to undo democracy. Do not ever assume that other voters will make wiser choices than you. Two quotes have lately been ringing in my head. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a society can never be both "ignorant and free." Ronald Reagan warned "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Ignorance is a choice. To ignore public affairs is to leave it in the hands of others and hope they know better. But do you really want to hang your freedom on it? It took two years (not even close to a generation) to snuff out freedom in Germany. Your vote is the best you can do to protect freedom in America. Use it and use it wisely.
Jason A.
Next Blog Will Be: What if I Don't Vote? (Part 2)
Aged thirty-one years at the time of this writing, I have been old enough to vote since the election of 2000. In every election, then and since, I always hear friends (different ones) say they are not interested in voting either because they do not think their vote counts (see my July 10th posting entitled "Does My Vote Really Count?" for an explanation of how your vote really does count) or that it doesn't matter who the next president is because presidents are all the same (see my July 9th posting entitled "Does It Really Matter Who The Next President Is?" for an explanation of how it really does matter who the next president is).
Some people don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. From this feeling, it follows that they think voting is only a choice between "the lesser of two evils." And what happens if the candidate they vote for actually wins and ends up a disappointment as president (or senator, or congressman, the point is the same)? If you vote for an elected official who turns out to be your worst nightmare, isn't it your fault it came to be that way? Added to all these dilemmas is the savaging competing politicians do to each others' character in the media. "Don't vote for that guy, he will bring an end to America as we know it!" How would you like to have that hang over your conscience? You wouldn't. Better to stay home election day and let the chips fall where they may, right? Isn't that the higher, wiser road?
Suppose you choose not to vote based on any or all the reasons above, the next question to ask is, "What happens as a consequence if I don't vote?" Simply put, if you don't vote, you are leaving the fate of the country in the hands of other voters. You are trusting that their wisdom is greater than yours. What if they elect leaders who turn out to be rattlesnakes? What if they elect leaders who rule without regard to the U.S. Constitution? Indeed, what if they elect leaders who create laws that violate the U.S. Constitution? What if they elect leaders who pass amendments that change the U.S. Constitution so that it no longer resembles the U.S. Constitution? Could it ever happen in America? Many people in Germany thought it could never happen there, in the election of 1932. Why should they have worried about it? They lived in a democracy, right? Better to stay home and let the chips fall where they may.
In 1932, Adolf Hitler's Nazi party became the largest party in Germany's parliament (equivalent to the U.S. Congress). The Nazis did not seize power by force - they won it in a free election! German tradition held that the leader of the largest party in parliament had a claim to be appointed chancellor. (In their system, they had a president and a chancellor). President Paul Hindenburg (not a fan of Hitler) felt compelled to appoint Hitler as the country's chancellor. The president was a very old man, some say he was senile. Under his nose, Chancellor Hitler appointed Nazis to take over all the country's police and security forces. After only a year in power, Hitler abolished the presidency (following the natural-cause death of old Hindenburg) and made himself the ruler of Germany under a new title - Fuhrer of the Reich. Hitler never bothered to write a new constitution for Germany, he simply ignored the old one. He proceeded to change the laws of the country. People's civil rights were stripped away from. Those Hitler deemed enemies were jailed or killed. Within twelve years, his Nazi party was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the world.
Try to imagine yourself as a German citizen who chose not to vote in 1932. You trusted the wisdom of others and left your fate in their hands. Could something as frightening as the Nazi example happen in America? You bet it could. Why? Because a democracy is only as good as the people entrusted to run it. If we elect good leaders, our democracy will be good. If we elect monsters, our democracy will be ripped to shreds.
You might be thinking, "This is all well and good, Jason. But how do I know I can make the right choice in an election?" You can make the right choice by voting for people who claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution. How will you know this? You will know it in the language they use when they talk about what guides their decision-making. If they never (or rarely) mention the U.S. Constitution, it is a red flag. (In the years before he came to power, Adolf Hitler never pretended he would uphold Germany's constitution. In his televised speeches, he made it clear that a vote for the Nazis was a vote for dictatorship. He promised to outlaw all political parties if his Nazis were elected.)
If politicians do not invoke the constitution and instead use high-flown language like, "we are going to expand social security to cover more people" or "we are going to make sure health insurance companies do not deny people for pre-existing conditions", this is all well and fine - but do not ever think it is more important than enforcing the U.S. Constitution. Once we lose the constitution we are doomed!
Your vote is your power to keep our democracy functioning. You have the right not to vote. But exercising that right will never improve the democracy we have. Without your vote, it will only wilt and die, like a flower denied water to sustain it. The haunting example of Nazi Germany will always be before us because it is an example of democracy being used in order to undo democracy. Do not ever assume that other voters will make wiser choices than you. Two quotes have lately been ringing in my head. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a society can never be both "ignorant and free." Ronald Reagan warned "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Ignorance is a choice. To ignore public affairs is to leave it in the hands of others and hope they know better. But do you really want to hang your freedom on it? It took two years (not even close to a generation) to snuff out freedom in Germany. Your vote is the best you can do to protect freedom in America. Use it and use it wisely.
Jason A.
Next Blog Will Be: What if I Don't Vote? (Part 2)
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Does My Vote Really Count?
Answer: Yes.
(This post is inspired by a comment made to yesterday's post "Does It Really Matter Who The Next President Is?")
Many people are confused about concepts such as "electoral college" and "popular vote." What is the difference between the two and does the electoral college count more than the popular vote? Does one affect the other or are they counted separately? Let's tackle these one at a time. And the ultimate question is, "Does my vote count?"
What is the difference between the "electoral college" and the "popular vote"?
The electoral college is the gathering of all the electoral delegates in their state capitals (and the District of Columbia in the case of the D.C. delegates) on the same day, to cast their votes to elect the next president.
Wait Jason! Does this mean the electoral college is what elects the president?
Yes.
But how does my vote count?
Stay with me.
Does one affect the other or are they counted separately?
The popular vote affects the electoral vote AND they are counted separately. The electoral college votes in December, a month after you vote in November. The delegates from your state are the ones who happen to be pledged to the candidate who won the popular vote in your state. In this way, the popular vote affects the electoral college vote.
What is the popular vote?
You are the popular vote. You cast your vote in November. Let us pretend you are a Georgia voter and you vote for Barack Obama. But much to your disappointment, Mitt Romney wins the popular vote in Georgia. That means all of Georgia's electoral college votes go to Mitt Romney. Why? Because our system is "winner take all."
Assuming Romney wins Georgia, that state's slate of electors will be the ones who are pledged to Romney. They will cast their votes on the designated day in December.
These days, our balloting and communications technology is advanced enough to know the electoral college outcome as soon as we know the outcome of the popular vote in each state. The electoral vote cast in December is mainly a ratification of what we already know within a few days of the election in November.
It gets thornier in those (rare) cases when the balloting is in doubt in certain states (Bush vs. Gore in 2000). When that happens, a confused logjam ensues and interested entities add to the confusion by throwing their weight in when they ought not to (Florida's supreme court changing that state's electoral rules in the middle of a re-count, in the 2000 example.)
Each state is allotted a certain number of electoral votes based on that state's total number of U.S. congressional representatives (that number is based on the population size of that state) and U.S. senators.
Why do large-population states get more house reps and therefore more electoral votes? Because the framers of our system did not want small states to have a disproportionately large influence in the makeup of federal officials and the outcome of national elections. The small states are compensated because all states are allowed the same number of representatives (two) in the U.S. Senate.
Does the electoral college count more than the popular vote?
Many people think it does because the electoral college is the final arbiter in the process, but in reality, one balances out the other. The large states have a potential to dominate the process because their large populations have the potential to carry more weight in the popular vote. However, the danger of large-state domination is balanced off because part of the allotment of electoral delegates is based on the number of U.S. Senators a state has, and every state has exactly two.
In these ways, your vote counts! Your vote is the kindle that fires the rest of the blaze, or the grease that turns the machine, however you may imagine it.
Jason A.
Answer: Yes.
(This post is inspired by a comment made to yesterday's post "Does It Really Matter Who The Next President Is?")
Many people are confused about concepts such as "electoral college" and "popular vote." What is the difference between the two and does the electoral college count more than the popular vote? Does one affect the other or are they counted separately? Let's tackle these one at a time. And the ultimate question is, "Does my vote count?"
What is the difference between the "electoral college" and the "popular vote"?
The electoral college is the gathering of all the electoral delegates in their state capitals (and the District of Columbia in the case of the D.C. delegates) on the same day, to cast their votes to elect the next president.
Wait Jason! Does this mean the electoral college is what elects the president?
Yes.
But how does my vote count?
Stay with me.
Does one affect the other or are they counted separately?
The popular vote affects the electoral vote AND they are counted separately. The electoral college votes in December, a month after you vote in November. The delegates from your state are the ones who happen to be pledged to the candidate who won the popular vote in your state. In this way, the popular vote affects the electoral college vote.
What is the popular vote?
You are the popular vote. You cast your vote in November. Let us pretend you are a Georgia voter and you vote for Barack Obama. But much to your disappointment, Mitt Romney wins the popular vote in Georgia. That means all of Georgia's electoral college votes go to Mitt Romney. Why? Because our system is "winner take all."
Assuming Romney wins Georgia, that state's slate of electors will be the ones who are pledged to Romney. They will cast their votes on the designated day in December.
These days, our balloting and communications technology is advanced enough to know the electoral college outcome as soon as we know the outcome of the popular vote in each state. The electoral vote cast in December is mainly a ratification of what we already know within a few days of the election in November.
It gets thornier in those (rare) cases when the balloting is in doubt in certain states (Bush vs. Gore in 2000). When that happens, a confused logjam ensues and interested entities add to the confusion by throwing their weight in when they ought not to (Florida's supreme court changing that state's electoral rules in the middle of a re-count, in the 2000 example.)
Each state is allotted a certain number of electoral votes based on that state's total number of U.S. congressional representatives (that number is based on the population size of that state) and U.S. senators.
Why do large-population states get more house reps and therefore more electoral votes? Because the framers of our system did not want small states to have a disproportionately large influence in the makeup of federal officials and the outcome of national elections. The small states are compensated because all states are allowed the same number of representatives (two) in the U.S. Senate.
Does the electoral college count more than the popular vote?
Many people think it does because the electoral college is the final arbiter in the process, but in reality, one balances out the other. The large states have a potential to dominate the process because their large populations have the potential to carry more weight in the popular vote. However, the danger of large-state domination is balanced off because part of the allotment of electoral delegates is based on the number of U.S. Senators a state has, and every state has exactly two.
In these ways, your vote counts! Your vote is the kindle that fires the rest of the blaze, or the grease that turns the machine, however you may imagine it.
Jason A.
Myth: The President Has No Real Power: He Must Listen To His Advisers
I have heard it said many times by different people that it doesn't matter who the president is, that he will listen to his advisers and do what they say. The advisers have the power and their strings are being pulled by some faceless, malevolent force like lobbyists representing - you guessed it - corporations! Why do people think this? Maybe it's because presidents sometimes surprise us by doing something unexpected or by breaking a promise. Maybe people think this because they've heard it from other people.
But as I study the presidency, I do not see this taking place. Oh, but wait a minute Jason, what about President Obama handing 500 million dollars in taxpayer money over to Solyndra (a solar power company which, subsequently went bankrupt, taking our money down with them)?
Well, if the president had no choice in the matter, the 500 million would have been handed over to Solyndra when they first asked it from President Bush, who turned them down. The fact is, Bush made a choice and Obama made a choice, to give or not to give 500 million to Solyndra.
The same is true with the president's advisers. An "adviser" is not the same thing as a "decider." People give us advice all day long but do we have to take it? No and presidents don't either. They pick a "cabinet" of advisers because it is tradition to do so and because it is a good idea; the president can not be an expert in every area of public policy.
Even so, presidents are free to pick and choose which advisers they want to listen to - and sometimes - they don't listen to any of them. FDR totally excluded his secretary of state and the entire state department from any role in the talks that reestablished diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Russia) in 1933. Just imagine the state department - the government agency that exists to conduct American foreign relations - totally excluded from the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between this country and another major one, like Russia! That's the kind of power a U.S. president has!
Relations between the two nations had been severed since 1917, when the Communists had come to power in Russia. FDR knew the state department was overwhelmingly staffed with people who did not want U.S. relations with a communist country, so he sent his own people over to Moscow to do the job instead.
In 1861, President Lincoln rejected most of his advisers when they told him not to re-supply Fort Sumner. His decision to do so led to the opening shots of the Civil War. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, is believed to have begged his boss not to push for health care reform in 2009-10, but his plea fell on deaf ears. The Chief of Staff was worried that the Democrats would take a pounding in the midterm elections (and he turned out to be right). Keep these examples in mind the next time someone tells you the president has little or no power. There are limits to presidential power but I will save that for another blog on another day.
Jason A.
Next Blog Will Be: "Does My Vote Really Count?"
I have heard it said many times by different people that it doesn't matter who the president is, that he will listen to his advisers and do what they say. The advisers have the power and their strings are being pulled by some faceless, malevolent force like lobbyists representing - you guessed it - corporations! Why do people think this? Maybe it's because presidents sometimes surprise us by doing something unexpected or by breaking a promise. Maybe people think this because they've heard it from other people.
But as I study the presidency, I do not see this taking place. Oh, but wait a minute Jason, what about President Obama handing 500 million dollars in taxpayer money over to Solyndra (a solar power company which, subsequently went bankrupt, taking our money down with them)?
Well, if the president had no choice in the matter, the 500 million would have been handed over to Solyndra when they first asked it from President Bush, who turned them down. The fact is, Bush made a choice and Obama made a choice, to give or not to give 500 million to Solyndra.
The same is true with the president's advisers. An "adviser" is not the same thing as a "decider." People give us advice all day long but do we have to take it? No and presidents don't either. They pick a "cabinet" of advisers because it is tradition to do so and because it is a good idea; the president can not be an expert in every area of public policy.
Even so, presidents are free to pick and choose which advisers they want to listen to - and sometimes - they don't listen to any of them. FDR totally excluded his secretary of state and the entire state department from any role in the talks that reestablished diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Russia) in 1933. Just imagine the state department - the government agency that exists to conduct American foreign relations - totally excluded from the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between this country and another major one, like Russia! That's the kind of power a U.S. president has!
Relations between the two nations had been severed since 1917, when the Communists had come to power in Russia. FDR knew the state department was overwhelmingly staffed with people who did not want U.S. relations with a communist country, so he sent his own people over to Moscow to do the job instead.
In 1861, President Lincoln rejected most of his advisers when they told him not to re-supply Fort Sumner. His decision to do so led to the opening shots of the Civil War. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, is believed to have begged his boss not to push for health care reform in 2009-10, but his plea fell on deaf ears. The Chief of Staff was worried that the Democrats would take a pounding in the midterm elections (and he turned out to be right). Keep these examples in mind the next time someone tells you the president has little or no power. There are limits to presidential power but I will save that for another blog on another day.
Jason A.
Next Blog Will Be: "Does My Vote Really Count?"
Monday, July 9, 2012
Does It Really Matter Who The Next President Is?
Answer: Yes. They Are Not All The Same, Contrary To What Some People Say.
Romney or Obama? Obama has given us Obamacare. Romney has given Massachusetts Romneycare. Does it really matter which one wins this November? Don't be fooled by George Soros' comment that he doesn't care who wins. He cares and he knows who he wants to win.
You might be asking yourself, "That's fine and dandy Jason, but how do I know it makes any difference who the next president is?" Please allow me to offer a brief analysis laced with "what if's" to help answer this question.
Would the U.S. have already withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq and announced to the world a timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan if John McCain had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama? No. In the U.S. Senate, McCain had voted against bills that included withdrawal timetables and hung his presidential qualifications on a pledge to see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through to absolute victory.
Would the U.S. have invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein if Al Gore had become president in 2000 instead of George W. Bush? No. Al Gore had been against military action in Iraq from the start, claiming that since no invasion of another country by Iraq was forthcoming in 2003, there was no need for the U.S. to attack.
Would we have ended up with Obamacare without Barack Obama as president? No, that's why it is "Obama" - care. McCaincare does not have the same ring. And since Obamacare has become so unpopular with much of the public it is highly doubtful Romneycare will go national, especially since he will have been elected by those he promised to end the enforcement of Obamacare by executive order his first day in the Oval Office.
Do all presidents cheat on their wives? No!!!!!!!! Clinton did. Kennedy did. But there were no such allegations made against George W. Bush. Not even Richard Nixon - that really surprises people! Surely "Tricky Dick" fooled around, right? What about covering up the Watergate break-in? Wouldn't a guy sneaky enough to do that cheat on his wife? Not necessarily folks. Of all the combing Nixon's enemies did on him, if he cheated on Pat, we would have known about it at some point.
Has Barack cheated? No one, despite exhaustive investigation into his personal life by Edward Klein and others, people who have nothing nice to say or write about Barack Obama, has found a shred of reason to believe he has cheated on Michelle. Klein said that himself.
Presidents are not all the same, folks. The historical examples could go on and on. Would the U.S. have gone to war in Vietnam if Eisenhower (if he had been constitutionally allowed and had lived long enough) was elected to a third and fourth term, thus preventing the JFK and LBJ presidencies? No. President Eisenhower rejected all war that could not be won without the use of nuclear weapons. That is why he ended the Korean War six months into his presidency. He then came under heavy pressure to put boots on the ground in Vietnam and he flatly refused! By the way, Eisenhower was a Republican, contrary to a myth out there that Republican presidents are mainly the ones who get America into wars. As it turned out, American boots on the ground in Vietnam happened as a result of choices made by presidents JFK and LBJ - both Democrats. No partisanship here - just the facts.
Wars, health care, marital fidelity - these are just a few categories in which we can examine presidential differences. In the interest of brevity I will stop here. But keep these things in mind this November when you are undecided about whether or not you will vote or who you will vote for. History comes out differently depending on who gets elected. It matters who gets elected.
Jason A.
Tomorrow's Blog Will Be:
Myth: The President Has No Real Power. He Must Listen To His Advisors.
Answer: Yes. They Are Not All The Same, Contrary To What Some People Say.
Romney or Obama? Obama has given us Obamacare. Romney has given Massachusetts Romneycare. Does it really matter which one wins this November? Don't be fooled by George Soros' comment that he doesn't care who wins. He cares and he knows who he wants to win.
You might be asking yourself, "That's fine and dandy Jason, but how do I know it makes any difference who the next president is?" Please allow me to offer a brief analysis laced with "what if's" to help answer this question.
Would the U.S. have already withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq and announced to the world a timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan if John McCain had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama? No. In the U.S. Senate, McCain had voted against bills that included withdrawal timetables and hung his presidential qualifications on a pledge to see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through to absolute victory.
Would the U.S. have invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein if Al Gore had become president in 2000 instead of George W. Bush? No. Al Gore had been against military action in Iraq from the start, claiming that since no invasion of another country by Iraq was forthcoming in 2003, there was no need for the U.S. to attack.
Would we have ended up with Obamacare without Barack Obama as president? No, that's why it is "Obama" - care. McCaincare does not have the same ring. And since Obamacare has become so unpopular with much of the public it is highly doubtful Romneycare will go national, especially since he will have been elected by those he promised to end the enforcement of Obamacare by executive order his first day in the Oval Office.
Do all presidents cheat on their wives? No!!!!!!!! Clinton did. Kennedy did. But there were no such allegations made against George W. Bush. Not even Richard Nixon - that really surprises people! Surely "Tricky Dick" fooled around, right? What about covering up the Watergate break-in? Wouldn't a guy sneaky enough to do that cheat on his wife? Not necessarily folks. Of all the combing Nixon's enemies did on him, if he cheated on Pat, we would have known about it at some point.
Has Barack cheated? No one, despite exhaustive investigation into his personal life by Edward Klein and others, people who have nothing nice to say or write about Barack Obama, has found a shred of reason to believe he has cheated on Michelle. Klein said that himself.
Presidents are not all the same, folks. The historical examples could go on and on. Would the U.S. have gone to war in Vietnam if Eisenhower (if he had been constitutionally allowed and had lived long enough) was elected to a third and fourth term, thus preventing the JFK and LBJ presidencies? No. President Eisenhower rejected all war that could not be won without the use of nuclear weapons. That is why he ended the Korean War six months into his presidency. He then came under heavy pressure to put boots on the ground in Vietnam and he flatly refused! By the way, Eisenhower was a Republican, contrary to a myth out there that Republican presidents are mainly the ones who get America into wars. As it turned out, American boots on the ground in Vietnam happened as a result of choices made by presidents JFK and LBJ - both Democrats. No partisanship here - just the facts.
Wars, health care, marital fidelity - these are just a few categories in which we can examine presidential differences. In the interest of brevity I will stop here. But keep these things in mind this November when you are undecided about whether or not you will vote or who you will vote for. History comes out differently depending on who gets elected. It matters who gets elected.
Jason A.
Tomorrow's Blog Will Be:
Myth: The President Has No Real Power. He Must Listen To His Advisors.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
What Happens To American Freedom If The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Makes The Wrong Call?
This post is a follow up to yesterday's post entitled "How Much Does A Supreme Court Ruling Impact My Freedom?"
No one knows why Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote other than the legal rationale he gave in the Court's majority "opinion." Yes, I know, their rulings are always called opinions. This is not the same thing as Jason Aldous expressing his opinion for what it's worth. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, big things happen. Laws either have to be changed or they are given extra staying power however the Court rules.
But why did he do it? Everyone - conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between, were expecting Justice Kennedy to be the one to swing the balance one way or the other in this case. The reliably conservative John Roberts was not even suspected of supporting the administration's case. And why should he have been suspected of it? None of the law-makers who voted to confirm his 2005 appointment to the Court had any doubt of his conservative leanings based on his prior record.
Commentators running the gamut from Charles Krauthammer to Bob Beckel assume that Roberts had considerations other than the constitutionality of the Obamacare law when he made his ruling. Of course, this is speculation, Roberts himself has not confirmed this. But everyone seems at a loss to come up with an explanation that makes sense.
And why does his own legal opinion not make sense? Because if the Obamacare law is constitutional based only on Congress' right to tax, ANY LAW THEY MAKE THAT INCLUDES A TAX LEVY WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL. They could make a law requiring us all to wear blue shirts on Tuesday's or face a tax penalty and, according to Roberts' constitutional logic, this would be permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Let's consider the possibly that Roberts made the wrong call in this case. Has American freedom been helped or hurt by it?
If the constitutionality of the Obamacare law was not Roberts' main consideration, what was? All the politicos I've seen on the news channels say that he was concerned about the prestige of the Supreme Court if it were to rule against a major piece of legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States. These pundits say that he was afraid of another controversial decision like the one the Court made in Bush v. Gore. If so, than this rationale flies in the face of what Roberts swore when he took his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Now, I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but I've always been under the understanding that a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to begin and end his or her rationale for ruling on a law - with the U.S. Constitution. If the chief justice or any of the other associate justices did exactly that, would not the prestige of the Court take care of itself?
This post is a follow up to yesterday's post entitled "How Much Does A Supreme Court Ruling Impact My Freedom?"
No one knows why Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote other than the legal rationale he gave in the Court's majority "opinion." Yes, I know, their rulings are always called opinions. This is not the same thing as Jason Aldous expressing his opinion for what it's worth. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, big things happen. Laws either have to be changed or they are given extra staying power however the Court rules.
But why did he do it? Everyone - conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between, were expecting Justice Kennedy to be the one to swing the balance one way or the other in this case. The reliably conservative John Roberts was not even suspected of supporting the administration's case. And why should he have been suspected of it? None of the law-makers who voted to confirm his 2005 appointment to the Court had any doubt of his conservative leanings based on his prior record.
Commentators running the gamut from Charles Krauthammer to Bob Beckel assume that Roberts had considerations other than the constitutionality of the Obamacare law when he made his ruling. Of course, this is speculation, Roberts himself has not confirmed this. But everyone seems at a loss to come up with an explanation that makes sense.
And why does his own legal opinion not make sense? Because if the Obamacare law is constitutional based only on Congress' right to tax, ANY LAW THEY MAKE THAT INCLUDES A TAX LEVY WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL. They could make a law requiring us all to wear blue shirts on Tuesday's or face a tax penalty and, according to Roberts' constitutional logic, this would be permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Let's consider the possibly that Roberts made the wrong call in this case. Has American freedom been helped or hurt by it?
If the constitutionality of the Obamacare law was not Roberts' main consideration, what was? All the politicos I've seen on the news channels say that he was concerned about the prestige of the Supreme Court if it were to rule against a major piece of legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States. These pundits say that he was afraid of another controversial decision like the one the Court made in Bush v. Gore. If so, than this rationale flies in the face of what Roberts swore when he took his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Now, I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but I've always been under the understanding that a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to begin and end his or her rationale for ruling on a law - with the U.S. Constitution. If the chief justice or any of the other associate justices did exactly that, would not the prestige of the Court take care of itself?
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Fundamental Question: How Much Does A Supreme Court Ruling Impact My Freedom?
Answer: A Whole Lot, Especially Considering The Court Has The Power To Inform Us, The People, Of Whether Or Not A Law Passed The Congress Is Permissible Under The U.S. Constitution. Without This All-Important Branch Of Government, No One Could Stop Presidents and Congresses From Making and Enforcing Laws That Would Tyrannize The American People.
Case For Discussion: The Court's Recent Ruling Over the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Known By Many Simply As "Obamacare."
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative justice appointed republican president George W. Bush recently shocked everyone by switching his vote at the 11th hour from the position of the conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, which with Roberts' vote would have given a majority ruling declaring the Obamacare law unconstitutional) to the position of the liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg, giving a majority ruling in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the law). The Obama administration's lawyers argued their case based on the Constitution's "commerce clause" which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The position of the conservative justices was that the constitutionality of Obamacare can not be supported by the commerce clause because regulating commerce is not the same thing as forcing people to participate in commerce (in reference to the law's mandate forcing the American people to buy health insurance or face a penalty). These four justices were prepared to strike the law down.
The position of the liberal judges was the same as the case argued by the administration's lawyers. At some point, the lawyers also argued that the penalty was a tax and therefore fell under Congress' power to tax. It was on this basis that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote to bolster the constitutionality of that law. The Obama administration won its day in court.
The fundamental question is, How does this impact our freedom? Regardless of what you think about the Obamacare law, did Roberts' judgment help or hurt American freedom? Is that law unconstitutional? Is it bad policy or both? I invite your input.
Answer: A Whole Lot, Especially Considering The Court Has The Power To Inform Us, The People, Of Whether Or Not A Law Passed The Congress Is Permissible Under The U.S. Constitution. Without This All-Important Branch Of Government, No One Could Stop Presidents and Congresses From Making and Enforcing Laws That Would Tyrannize The American People.
Case For Discussion: The Court's Recent Ruling Over the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Known By Many Simply As "Obamacare."
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative justice appointed republican president George W. Bush recently shocked everyone by switching his vote at the 11th hour from the position of the conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, which with Roberts' vote would have given a majority ruling declaring the Obamacare law unconstitutional) to the position of the liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg, giving a majority ruling in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the law). The Obama administration's lawyers argued their case based on the Constitution's "commerce clause" which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The position of the conservative justices was that the constitutionality of Obamacare can not be supported by the commerce clause because regulating commerce is not the same thing as forcing people to participate in commerce (in reference to the law's mandate forcing the American people to buy health insurance or face a penalty). These four justices were prepared to strike the law down.
The position of the liberal judges was the same as the case argued by the administration's lawyers. At some point, the lawyers also argued that the penalty was a tax and therefore fell under Congress' power to tax. It was on this basis that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote to bolster the constitutionality of that law. The Obama administration won its day in court.
The fundamental question is, How does this impact our freedom? Regardless of what you think about the Obamacare law, did Roberts' judgment help or hurt American freedom? Is that law unconstitutional? Is it bad policy or both? I invite your input.
Hello Friends,
This is my first post. I am a first-time blogger and I'm learning as I go about it. So, if any of you have some suggestions about effective blogging, please pass them along to me. Most blogs I'm aware of mainly consist of the author posting his or her thoughts and inviting commentary to that. I have plenty of thoughts to share but I am even more interested in what I can learn from you. So I may use ideas from your comments as post topics to invite further commentary. In this way, we can all use this blog as a market-place of ideas to enrich our understanding of politics and to help us make informed choices when we cast our ballots this November. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a society can never be both "ignorant and free." I, for one, want to be free - too many of our forebears paid with their blood to ensure that. So it follows that I can not be ignorant of what is going on in my society concerning choices that are being made that effect me and the people who are making them in representation of me. In that spirit, I invite you all to join me in the choice to not be ignorant. In the end, this spirit will keep us all free...
This is my first post. I am a first-time blogger and I'm learning as I go about it. So, if any of you have some suggestions about effective blogging, please pass them along to me. Most blogs I'm aware of mainly consist of the author posting his or her thoughts and inviting commentary to that. I have plenty of thoughts to share but I am even more interested in what I can learn from you. So I may use ideas from your comments as post topics to invite further commentary. In this way, we can all use this blog as a market-place of ideas to enrich our understanding of politics and to help us make informed choices when we cast our ballots this November. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a society can never be both "ignorant and free." I, for one, want to be free - too many of our forebears paid with their blood to ensure that. So it follows that I can not be ignorant of what is going on in my society concerning choices that are being made that effect me and the people who are making them in representation of me. In that spirit, I invite you all to join me in the choice to not be ignorant. In the end, this spirit will keep us all free...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)