In light of the next GOP debate tomorrow (hosted by NBC and Facebook) I'd like to ponder a few basic and obvious questions that candidates should be expected to answer. Hopefully, given the nature of this particular debate that relies upon Facebook user interaction, we can finally get some clarity.
1. It's easy to say you'll "fix the economy." It's easy to throw in some charged up rhetoric and get people excited about you. And honestly, it's easy to lay out your plan to do so, because, as a serious presidential candidate, you obviously have viable solutions up your sleeve. So, clearly and concisely, explain to the American people how you will improve our nation's economic situation.
2. Let's talk foreign policy. Explain why it does or does not matter that Iran seeks to proliferate. Explain why we are still obligated to blindly support Israel even as they commit human rights violations (or do they?). Explain why North Korea matters, either as a threat or as an opportunity to help the world or what have you. Explain why we can't legalize marijuana to reduce border violence with Mexico or lay off sanctions to build a relationship with Cuba. Explain why exactly Hugo Chavez is the enemy.
And no, I'm not kidding about any of that. Our foreign policy should be dynamic, pragmatic, and, most of all, conceived to serve America's best interests. It shouldn't be set in stone. Instead it reminds me of this Family Guy clip in which Peter and the chicken realize they don't even remember why they're enemies. And even though they start fighting again... at least it's because of a new conflict.
3. Why do social issues even matter? This goes out to Rick Santorum. Heck, even this cringe-worthy attempt at journalism from Fox News (which I don't necessarily blame on the network -- I like Fox for some aspects of their coverage) refers to "Santorum’s appeal to women and evangelicals." That's his base -- and I'd warrant women only really when they happen to also be strongly conservative. His supporters are in favor of a campaign strategy which he proclaims is based on maintaining traditional social conventions. But why should this be key to constituents? He claims everything that he so reviles (see: gays, abortion, contraception, welfare and possibly black people) is a states' rights issue anyway. To the more moderate candidates, same question. Do these discussions have any place in a presidential race?
4. We all seem allergic to substantive debate, but allow me to try this one: What energy policy do you support to keep our country running? Are you another Big Oil puppet? Are you a fan of any and all alternative fuels? Should it vary by region? Nuclear power: yea or nay?
5. Republicans don't seem to care too much about our public education, but the people do. What will you do with the Department of Education? Federal funding? State standards?
What I'd really love is having inter-party debates. Poll the audience on GOP participants and pick three or so, give a wild card to Republican former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, add Libertarian candidate and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, and get Obama in for good measure. If you want to make things really exciting... let some non-candidates debate. Have the voters directly challenge the next POTUS. Make the suits (or sweater vests, as the case may be) a little bit uncomfortable. They need the practice.
And, as always, I'd like to quickly make the case for Americans Elect. Maybe if some people can see that the media's chosen candidates don't represent their views, those people can seek out options they actually like.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Truth About Iowa
Thanks to the Iowa Republican caucuses last night, Rick Perry has taken a moment to think about his campaign,the Michele Bachmann scream machine has grown subdued, and Rick Santorum suddenly seems like a legitimate contender.
This is all so terribly wrong.
In general, I view caucuses/primaries as meaningless -- after all, what do the opinions of randos on the other side of the country have to do with me? -- but Iowa's last night shouldn't affect ANYTHING. 120,000 people in a state of 3 million voted. Even accounting for those ineligible to participate (Democrats, kids who won't be 18 by November)... clearly only the truly zealous Republicans bothered with it. It should have little to no bearing on the race as a whole. The state of Iowa is different from many other parts of the country: According to the Census Bureau, Iowa is about 91% white, while less than three percent of the population is black and less than four percent is Hispanic. Native Americans and Asians combined are a mere two percent of the population. Iowa is often generally seen as a swing state: Since 1984, Iowans have on average voted around 40-45% Republican in presidential elections. Their caucus does very little to demonstrate how Iowa's voters will perform in the general election.
Therefore, it really shouldn't matter to Rick Perry that things didn't go his way. As much as I hate to say it, Bachmann shouldn't have quit based on this one result. And the biggest problem of all: Rick Santorum's second-place finish can likely be attribute to his single-minded dedication to the state of Iowa. While other candidates have spent time in New Hampshire already and have spoken in various other locations, wooing the nation as a whole the entire time, Santorum has been hitting the pavement in Iowa only. He visited every county. He meet as many Iowans as possible. He won't be able to repeat that in other states; he won't be able to root out the minority that loves him. His strong showing comes at a steep price.
But none of this matters. The media, and the candidates, pretend like Iowa's results mean something significant. Some commentators point out that past winners in Iowa (see: Mike Huckabee) flame out long before their party convention, while others who fail in Iowa (see: John McCain) ultimately capture the nomination. So why should the decisions of one relatively small and homogeneous state affect the race for the rest of us? Why should we care?
The answer is simple. Iowa shouldn't affect the rest of us, and the rest of us shouldn't feel compelled to care. We should focus on watching the remaining debates and continuing to research candidates to find out their real agendas. And when we find a satisfactory choice, we should throw our weight behind that candidate, no matter what his/her party affiliation. We should each vote for the principles we each think are most important to the nation. That, my friends, is democracy.
As Americans Elect proclaims, vote for a person. Not a party. Think critically, y'all. Don't be afraid to assert yourselves as citizens.
This is all so terribly wrong.
In general, I view caucuses/primaries as meaningless -- after all, what do the opinions of randos on the other side of the country have to do with me? -- but Iowa's last night shouldn't affect ANYTHING. 120,000 people in a state of 3 million voted. Even accounting for those ineligible to participate (Democrats, kids who won't be 18 by November)... clearly only the truly zealous Republicans bothered with it. It should have little to no bearing on the race as a whole. The state of Iowa is different from many other parts of the country: According to the Census Bureau, Iowa is about 91% white, while less than three percent of the population is black and less than four percent is Hispanic. Native Americans and Asians combined are a mere two percent of the population. Iowa is often generally seen as a swing state: Since 1984, Iowans have on average voted around 40-45% Republican in presidential elections. Their caucus does very little to demonstrate how Iowa's voters will perform in the general election.
Therefore, it really shouldn't matter to Rick Perry that things didn't go his way. As much as I hate to say it, Bachmann shouldn't have quit based on this one result. And the biggest problem of all: Rick Santorum's second-place finish can likely be attribute to his single-minded dedication to the state of Iowa. While other candidates have spent time in New Hampshire already and have spoken in various other locations, wooing the nation as a whole the entire time, Santorum has been hitting the pavement in Iowa only. He visited every county. He meet as many Iowans as possible. He won't be able to repeat that in other states; he won't be able to root out the minority that loves him. His strong showing comes at a steep price.
But none of this matters. The media, and the candidates, pretend like Iowa's results mean something significant. Some commentators point out that past winners in Iowa (see: Mike Huckabee) flame out long before their party convention, while others who fail in Iowa (see: John McCain) ultimately capture the nomination. So why should the decisions of one relatively small and homogeneous state affect the race for the rest of us? Why should we care?
The answer is simple. Iowa shouldn't affect the rest of us, and the rest of us shouldn't feel compelled to care. We should focus on watching the remaining debates and continuing to research candidates to find out their real agendas. And when we find a satisfactory choice, we should throw our weight behind that candidate, no matter what his/her party affiliation. We should each vote for the principles we each think are most important to the nation. That, my friends, is democracy.
As Americans Elect proclaims, vote for a person. Not a party. Think critically, y'all. Don't be afraid to assert yourselves as citizens.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Hello again.
So I kind of haven't posted since July 2011. First semester of college is indeed a serious time for transition.
But now I'm back and I am FIRED UP about politics and pop culture and society in general. I'm currently posting everywhere about this, but it's super exciting. I've been a member of the Americans Elect project since August but I am now officially part of the team as a campus leader for the University of Alabama. It's an extremely innovative and awesome initiative to give the power to the voters instead of the parties and the media. I can't wait to see how things go.
Wish me luck!
But now I'm back and I am FIRED UP about politics and pop culture and society in general. I'm currently posting everywhere about this, but it's super exciting. I've been a member of the Americans Elect project since August but I am now officially part of the team as a campus leader for the University of Alabama. It's an extremely innovative and awesome initiative to give the power to the voters instead of the parties and the media. I can't wait to see how things go.
Wish me luck!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Ron Paul's New Ad: Convincing?
Ron Paul released his "Conviction" ad today (embedded video at Slate). The basic premise: Compromise is a very bad thing.
I should hope to assume that the false dilemma Paul presents of "Compromise vs. Conviction" extends only to the debt ceiling debate, but someone as passionate at Paul can be expected to make this mantra something of a campaign slogan. I fail to understand how he can outright reject the idea of "compromise" when he's running for a position that is, at least in my view, ideally not bipartisan, but nonpartisan.
Don't get me wrong, heading into the 2008 election's campaign season I dearly loved Ron Paul. But the Tea Party seems to have changed him. Now that he's gaining more credibility and traction in the mainstream media, he seems to be devolving into a grandstanding right-winger -- not the kind of candidate who can survive the general election, therefore not the kind who deserves the nomination.
The major failing of the GOP so far (and this discussion will undoubtedly be a theme with me) is that they have no foresight. Yeah, sure, Bachmann's popular with the uberconservatives. But what about the rest of America? Heck, what about the rest of the party? Socially conservative policies are clearly not what America wants; the Republicans need to slide a bit to the left and deal with it. Otherwise they continue their trend of hypocrisy.
In order to stop this from being absurdly long, I'll leave a to-do list in case there were some gaps.
Things to elaborate on later:
1. Why we need to stop taking consummate conservatives seriously
2. Why the GOP needs to become essentially libertarian
3. Pros and cons of "pledges" and campaign promises that leave no room for flip-flopping
Any thoughts on the ad or Paul's campaign?
(Or anything else?)
I should hope to assume that the false dilemma Paul presents of "Compromise vs. Conviction" extends only to the debt ceiling debate, but someone as passionate at Paul can be expected to make this mantra something of a campaign slogan. I fail to understand how he can outright reject the idea of "compromise" when he's running for a position that is, at least in my view, ideally not bipartisan, but nonpartisan.
Don't get me wrong, heading into the 2008 election's campaign season I dearly loved Ron Paul. But the Tea Party seems to have changed him. Now that he's gaining more credibility and traction in the mainstream media, he seems to be devolving into a grandstanding right-winger -- not the kind of candidate who can survive the general election, therefore not the kind who deserves the nomination.
The major failing of the GOP so far (and this discussion will undoubtedly be a theme with me) is that they have no foresight. Yeah, sure, Bachmann's popular with the uberconservatives. But what about the rest of America? Heck, what about the rest of the party? Socially conservative policies are clearly not what America wants; the Republicans need to slide a bit to the left and deal with it. Otherwise they continue their trend of hypocrisy.
In order to stop this from being absurdly long, I'll leave a to-do list in case there were some gaps.
Things to elaborate on later:
1. Why we need to stop taking consummate conservatives seriously
2. Why the GOP needs to become essentially libertarian
3. Pros and cons of "pledges" and campaign promises that leave no room for flip-flopping
Any thoughts on the ad or Paul's campaign?
(Or anything else?)
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
New Project?
Hey, y'all.
I'm been thinking a lot about my future and such, and today I hit upon an idea I may pursue. I'm going to begin pulling together my various political theories into a book of some sort, a kind of intro to contemporary issues for Americans. As I work on various sections, I'll post excerpts.
Wish me luck!
I'm been thinking a lot about my future and such, and today I hit upon an idea I may pursue. I'm going to begin pulling together my various political theories into a book of some sort, a kind of intro to contemporary issues for Americans. As I work on various sections, I'll post excerpts.
Wish me luck!
Friday, July 8, 2011
Michele Bachmann, You're An Idiot. Rick Santorum... You're Santorum.
Today I saw a post about Michele Bachmann's new Family Leader marriage pledge (PDF can be downloaded here -- it's good for a laugh and you want to go through the whole thing). Apparently it's drafted by some conservative organization in Iowa for candidates to sign. Bachmann and Santorum are the first two to put their Paul Reveres* to the page. I'll hit the highlights.
I have to point out that the first sentence cites "classical philosophers." Who were kind of known for loving some pederasty. Which consists of sexual relationships between old dudes and adolescent boys. But okay.
Bigots say: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bi...as which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I have to point out that the first sentence cites "classical philosophers." Who were kind of known for loving some pederasty. Which consists of sexual relationships between old dudes and adolescent boys. But okay.
Bigots say: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bi...as which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I say: What's wrong with this argument? Hmm.
1. If we want to go with empirical proof on genetic determination, results would be... inconclusive. But if we just want to go with empirical, since she loves that word, then yes, actually, many with "non-heterosexual inclinations" certainly didn't ask for them.
2. Still waiting on the logic behind choosing to be gay in a world populated and, unfortunately, often ruled by the likes of Michele Bachmann.
3. "Homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general" -- how the heck does homosexuality automatically qualify as promiscuity? Oh wait, it doesn't. Gay people aren't actually less human than their straight peers, and therefore have that whole monogamy thing sometimes too. EMPIRICALLY, plenty of homosexual couples have long-term monogamous relationships.
4. If we are using this premise that "Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order" -- well, turns out gays can actually fit into that picture after all.
1. If we want to go with empirical proof on genetic determination, results would be... inconclusive. But if we just want to go with empirical, since she loves that word, then yes, actually, many with "non-heterosexual inclinations" certainly didn't ask for them.
2. Still waiting on the logic behind choosing to be gay in a world populated and, unfortunately, often ruled by the likes of Michele Bachmann.
3. "Homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general" -- how the heck does homosexuality automatically qualify as promiscuity? Oh wait, it doesn't. Gay people aren't actually less human than their straight peers, and therefore have that whole monogamy thing sometimes too. EMPIRICALLY, plenty of homosexual couples have long-term monogamous relationships.
4. If we are using this premise that "Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order" -- well, turns out gays can actually fit into that picture after all.
Bigots say: "I do hereby solemnly vow to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow to do so through my:
- Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous..., polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
- Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy."
Bigots add to this list: "Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy."
I say: ...funny, since that means we logically also can't undermine law-abiding American citizens for accepting homosexual monogamy? Otherwise we'd be imposing part of the population's religious beliefs on the entire nation's political freedoms... and that can't be right! After all, the pledge also includes "Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution." Which caused me to raise an eyebrow at "a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States" because, well, why is a religious denomination's definition the end-all, be-all for all of America?
This pledge speaks to the consuming, overwhelming hypocrisy of conservatives in America. When it's convenient, they stomp and swear about their individual rights; when you want to take their guns or their prayers. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting responsible individuals buy their own guns and commit to their own religions. But I don't conveniently cut these rights off past the point where I personally need them. I don't currently own a gun, but I have no issue with others buying them. I don't currently have a desire to marry my (non-existent) same-sex lover; but millions of people do. So let them.
As much as these conservatives will say, "Marriage is for one-man, one-woman, monogamously. Infidelity is as unacceptable as all this other stuff," they're not walking the walk. If they were, they'd be trying to outlaw divorce just as fiercely as gay marriage.
You may think that's ridiculous. But that's the point. And fanaticism generally is pretty incredible. But see, these conservatives, the Bachmanns and the Santorums, make noise about how awful adultery is, but at the end of the day they're supporting the rights of straight people to get married and do whatever the heck they want in that marriage, whereas two people in a truly committed, loving relationship can be barred from that sort of legally recognized monogamous relationship because, what, they're gay? They can say God doesn't like gays, but he also doesn't care much for liars or hypocrites.
Americans need to stand up to the far right and their "marriage protection" and their condescension toward the rest of us and tell them: Empirically, this is not okay.
*Yes, I know, it's John Hancock. But in honor of Michelle Bachmann I figured I should be historically inaccurate.
UPDATE: Governor Gary Johnson, my current personal favorite GOP candidate, posted this response to the pledge: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican.
He's one of the few to comment on how awful the whole thing is.
UPDATE: Governor Gary Johnson, my current personal favorite GOP candidate, posted this response to the pledge: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican.
He's one of the few to comment on how awful the whole thing is.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Insomnia + Libertarianism + The Future
Hey, y'all.
I really don't know why I'm awake right now seeing as I did not go to sleep at all last night, but whatever. I'm a lil' bit of an insomniac.
I'm thinking I'll do some talking about presidential candidates pretty soon, including my personal fave, GOP "classical liberal"/libertarian (his term/everyone else's) Gary Johnson. He was a successful two term president of New Mexico and he's awesome. This article from The Atlantic features the video he put together after CNN, in an epic bout of c***-blocking (WHOA I CENSORED MYSELF), barred him from their debate in mid-June. I personally tried real hard to watch the debate, but I was in a sports bar in Dallas at the time and the one TV that was on CNN was muted. So essentially we read the questions and debated whether Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is hotter (an entirely relative debate, keep in mind).
I might go into offering info on other candidates here as a sort of... public service?
I'll also probably ramble about my college and life plans. It'll be excited. And as I start working on reviews for entertainment-y stuff, those will pop up.
See y'all around.
I really don't know why I'm awake right now seeing as I did not go to sleep at all last night, but whatever. I'm a lil' bit of an insomniac.
I'm thinking I'll do some talking about presidential candidates pretty soon, including my personal fave, GOP "classical liberal"/libertarian (his term/everyone else's) Gary Johnson. He was a successful two term president of New Mexico and he's awesome. This article from The Atlantic features the video he put together after CNN, in an epic bout of c***-blocking (WHOA I CENSORED MYSELF), barred him from their debate in mid-June. I personally tried real hard to watch the debate, but I was in a sports bar in Dallas at the time and the one TV that was on CNN was muted. So essentially we read the questions and debated whether Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is hotter (an entirely relative debate, keep in mind).
I might go into offering info on other candidates here as a sort of... public service?
I'll also probably ramble about my college and life plans. It'll be excited. And as I start working on reviews for entertainment-y stuff, those will pop up.
See y'all around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)