Questions That Haunt Me...

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.

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.

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!