Get Out the Vote

I recently spent several hours campaigning for the Republican Party in Kansas and what an experience that was! I have campaigned in Washington, Nevada, and Idaho previously but this was extremely different for several reasons.  The first was the fact that there were about 4 or 5 of us out walking the streets of Manhattan, Kansas and passing out voter registration forms, advanced voting ballots, and candidate information packets as opposed to the dozens I have been with in the past.  The second difference was the amount of youth (and by youth I mean the 18-25 age group) were actually interested in what we had to say.  It was a relief to see my generation being involved in some way with the political process and I couldn't be happier.  It is our civic duty and obligation to voice our opinions of those government officials who directly impact our way life by voting.  It is so simple and usually quite quick however there are still a massive amount of people that just will not do it.  Why is this?  The lack of civic engagement has caught the attention of several prominent political scientists and sociologists over the past decade and their findings show that although the advancement of technology has allowed for an increase in accessibility, this advancement has also been detrimental to relationships among citizens.  We as citizens of this fantastic country have the right and agency to choose who we vote for and it is sad to see that because of laziness and a disconnect on an individual and local level, we do not act on it.  There are so few countries that have the same freedoms we have and yet we claim so readily that our freedoms and liberty are being taken from us but we have the right to vote for those that are "taking our freedoms".  Do something about it.  Get out the vote in this mid term election and let your voice be heard.

Extremism Part 2

Really America?  What is this country coming too?  I love patriotism but this is getting out of hand.  Liberals v. Conservatives on EVERY issue is not how this was meant to be.  Maybe Madison was right in Federalist 10 (you should go read it often to keep yourself in check) when he said factions were dangerous.  We have to pull together in this country or we will ruin ourselves.  Pointing fingers and accusing opponents of ridiculous actions and statements is not going make the other side look better.  I feel like the news has reverted back to junior high when everyone was in that awkward stage and was rude and inappropriate in many aspects.  There needs to be differences and no one would deny that but the differences are now tearing the country apart and instead of inspiring people to get out the vote, the extreme antics of both parties is pushing people further into the wood work and before we know it extremism will be much more prevalent because the more cautious and wise moderate center will no longer have interest in the process.  These topics such as homosexual marriage, abortion, healthcare, etc must be resolved somehow but because neither side will (or can) come to a solution perhaps it is time to mix things up in the government.  Lets get some unknowns and newbies into the mix and maybe with the combination of the wise and seasoned with the new and fresh will create some ideas and policies that will actually work for both sides.  I know that extremism really knows no concessions but there is no room for a "one size fits all" in the policies and we must come closer to the center to avoid favoring small groups over what the general population wants.  Can we do it?  I would say yes.

Realism v. Idealism

When thinking of politics and the root of the words realism and idealism, which sounds more usable in relation to international and domestic policy.  Sure, ideally we would love to have every citizen be happy and content with each policy decision and each country we interact with agree with and adhere to alliances and sanctions that are agreed upon however... the world is not ideal.  The real story is that each country and each citizen within that country act rationally according to their personal disposition and belief.  There is no way in anyone's mind that those beliefs are going to match up and although there is a strong correlation between the belief system for the larger mass of citizens there are still differences that (as we have seen over the past decade) can escalate into culture wars and sometimes lead to civil wars.  It is imperative to understand that realism is the dominant theory that is applied to politics in this sense and the reasoning is logical.  Although most politicians and institutions will use euphemisms to describe hot topics or controversial issues, behind the smoke screen is a very realistic point of view and if we dig deeper almost everyone (excluding the outliers or extremists on both sides) has the same goal in mind the means to that end are the differences.
If every nation viewed the world ideally, there would be very little cooperation because it would be chaotic to try to comprehend why those from other nations are acting irrationally according to our personal perception of them and vice versa.  Idealism is a theory that NGO's use to try to gain influence and power because it "sounds" acceptable and less harsh but in reality, the world is a harsh place and it comes down to those who have the power and those who do not.  The G-20 make most of the world economic policy decisions because they have the resources to provide for their personal benefit which typically benefits other nations as well but countries are always looking out for number 1 because they have to.  That is key to survival and that is why idealism as a theory, would never work in a worldwide arena.  There are too many opposing views and beliefs that come into play, hence realism dominates.
This is something that has been on my mind over the past week or so as different news headlines have been debated and topics in class have circled these very issues.  I hope you can make a rational decision for yourselves after researching further what has been stated in this particular post.

Liberty, Democracy, and Security

There are strong correlations between liberty and democracy since the rise of the United States of America shortly after the Revolutionary war.  In an article by Russel Bova called "Democracy and Liberty: Cultural Connection" various relationships are pointed out but one struck me more than the others.  He pointed out that culture and the institution are key indicators of how well democracy and therefore liberty will work and be successful.  Most of the countries that are successful in democracy and oftentimes liberty are Western or have a high Western influence.  These countries have strong ties to national security and have expanded to international security through the past century.  Although the concept of democracy and human rights have been introduced into Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa, some of the countries have not had success in this endeavor.  The question is why?  In several Eastern European and Latin American countries, the poor human rights were changed quickly and they have been able to have continuous success in the push toward liberty.  Africa is a different case; many of these countries have been unable to break away from traditional institutions and have struggled with human rights laws along with security of their people.  It is my personal opinion that quality of life can be changed if given enough time and enough support.  It is pointed out within Bova's article that both Hong Kong and Singapore were influenced by the United Kingdom and yet Hong Kong has a better economy and significantly better human rights laws.  Singapore has struggled and the main reason is the influence of economic strength from the UK to Hong Kong (who was a much more dependent nation at the time) and the lack thereof in Singapore (a much more independent country).  The amount of influence and the amount of time given to change is key and I believe that this is a value often forgotten in foreign policy.  The United States is a democracy and although liberties have been given up for security at times in history, the country is safe.  We have the freedoms that other nations have sacrificed their lives for and still have not secured.  Total security and total liberty are not both possible within a democracy.  There is a fragile line between the two and depending on events, some security must be given up to secure rights and liberties and vice versa.  This is important to remember about history.  Let us not repeat the same mistakes that led to terrible struggles and even wars.

Belated Tribute

I love this country.  I love the men who fought to create this country.  I love the men and women who continue to fight to preserve our lives, liberty, and happiness in this country.
God bless America and God bless those that passed on during or as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center 9 years ago.  God bless the families of those that passed on and God bless those that survived and are alive today to proudly represent resilient patriotism and nationalism.
Behold, Our National Anthem:
Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light 
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming; 
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, 
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, 
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there: 
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave 
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? 


And this be our motto: "In God is our trust": 
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave 
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

God Bless this country and all it's citizens, may it forever be a pillar of Democracy and freedom.

Electoral College

Many people have heard of the electoral college, but what is it?  What is the purpose?  Why is it used?
These are all questions I hope to answer and share my opinion of the reason why we do not have a direct election for the most important position in the Federal Government.
A lot of this information is readily available on the archives website for the United States Government by the way so I would definitely research for yourself.
The Electoral College is written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to assure fairness in voting for the President of the United States.  It is a process by which the citizens of the country elect the electors and the electors then vote in the General Election.  The system can be somewhat biased however, if 51% of the electors vote for on nominee and 49% cast their ballot for the opposing nominee, the individual who scraped 51% takes all the votes in all states except Nebraska who splits the votes according to percent.
Each state is allotted the same number of electors as they have in both houses of congress.  Obviously this changes from year to year but population rarely changes in states enough to change the apportionment in congress so as we know California, Texas, and New York have large amounts of influence.
I would like to know how this is perceived as fair.  If a candidate is able to get 49% of the votes, he should be allotted those votes in the final count.  Nebraska is the ONLY state that does this and it seems that they understand equality in voting and the importance of each vote mattering and being counted.  Why then are hundreds of votes thrown out each year to produce results that are less than fair according to vote itself.  By just looking at the 3 big states mentioned previously (California: Obama-61 McCain-37, Texas: Obama-44 McCain-56, and New York: Obama-62 McCain-37*) would have changed the winning number from a landslide to closer race than originally thought.  Indiana for example sent all 11 of the electoral votes to Obama despite the fact that he only received 50% of those with McCain receiving 49%.  Does that seem fair?  No, it does not and I would suggest more research be done on the effects of the Electoral College to possibly make changes or adopt Nebraska's model.
*This numbers were from the NPR website on the 2008 electoral map page.

Federalist Paper # 10

Although these papers were written over 200 years ago, we can draw a lot of the original intent of the framers and apply it to how we create laws and understand the United States Constitution.  Federalist 10 (written by Madison) discusses factions and points out the flaws in them along with the purpose of them in politics.  Most of us are passionate about something and the purpose of the two political parties of the United States is to encompass those beliefs.  It has become increasingly difficult over the past 2 years to see that the 2 parties are in fact very different because of the splitting within each party and the incessant mud slinging of politicians in both from both.  There is nothing that can divide quicker and more efficiently than the divide that comes from within.  There are extremists in both parties, there are moderates in both parties, and there is everyone in between.  The major differences are well known and stated in the political platforms of each party but the major ones are of course Homosexual rights, Abortion, Environmental Issues, and Government Powers (size and expanse).  These are issues that often deal with individual morals which are a part of people's foundations, therefor it is obvious that these are going to be passionate subjects and the arguments will turn into personal attacks and rumor spreading.  Is this what Madison was warning us of?  I doubt he had any idea as to what American would come to but it is a safe bet that many of the founding fathers would be disappointed with the country they fought and died to create and protect.

Education of the Masses

Seymour Martin Lipset stated "Who knows only one country knows no countries"
I was reading "How Academia Failed the Nation" by Francis Fukuyama (one of the most intriguing political writers in my opinion) and I felt the need to share my findings with you.  The article talks about the September 11 attacks and the lack of preparedness the United States felt during the response period.  Fukuyama states that there were few that even spoke Pushto or Arabic at all and most of those involved in the assault on Iraq had little understanding of the culture and this led to some of the devastation that would have possibly been avoided had they been educated on the deeper meanings of culture to other nations.
There were few schools that even had Middle Eastern studies as a part of their curriculum at a college level and there were even less specialized programs with training to handle and understand other cultures specifically those in the Middle East.  It is hard for someone at my age to remember in detail what foreign diplomacy and relations were like because I had just started my freshman year in high school but as history has shown, all it takes to shove the masses into education is a tragedy.  The world wars, the attempted invasion of several Asiatic countries, and the Stock Market crash of 1929 were all events that pushed us as a whole into branching out in our education of those things beyond the norms of the time.  It is apparent that this country is lacking in certain knowledge which I believe comes from being a hegemon that has little to fear from any other country.
Fukuyama goes on to say that although it is imperative for people to have at least a basic knowledge of regional studies, it is not enough and "has it's own limitations".  It is more simple to understand one's own country of origin than it is to learn about something completely foreign in immense amounts of ways.  It is easy to overlook and draw general conclusions in areas where specificity is necessary.  Can this be changed?  Will it always take something terrible happening to bring us to reality?  Let us hope not but let this be a lesson learned that we must (as should other countries) be well learned about nations with whom we interact.

Common Good v. Individual Rights

This topic has been on my mind for the past week and each time I have sat down to write about it, something does not sound right in the delivery so hopefully this one is crystal clear.
I recently stumbled upon a quote that I personally agree with about those that tend to support too much focus on the individual rights and it goes as follows "Liberalism, because of it's emphasis on individual autonomy and choice has been criticized as being morally rudderless and insufficiently concerned about the common good"  I have always believed that a common ground must be met in the case of general and specific.  If we never focused on the individual, many rights would be lost and I believe that the Bill of Rights would be made void however, if too much focus is placed on the individual chaos ensues.  There will be riots and the common good of all will be forgotten in the process as some rights are given leeway and others are trampled.
The answer should be simple but as everything in America, it is not.  There are no longer just two sides of the playing field as each side has branched off and created it's own story and interest group.
What to do what to do America?  Have we really been so blind to see that the rights given to the masses are slowly being chinked away in the name of equality?  The past couple decades have produced brilliant minds that have produced brilliant euphemisms to replace harsh or ugly words like Pro-Abortion (now Pro-Choice), Homosexual Marriage (now Equality of Marriage), and Affirmative Action (now Race-Equality).  Trying to go back and fix what was done in history is not the key to success in the future.  This upcoming election will show where the thoughts of out citizens are at but until that time, fight for what you believe in and fight for the rights of the common good because as those rights are given back, individual rights will fall into their place instead of taking the place of what the Bill of Rights promises.

Illegal funding? Perhaps.

Nancy Pelosi has been one of the few politicians that is under constant fire since she became Speaker of the House and for good reason.  She is known for being abrasive and inconsistent in her views.  I was recently reading an article by Charles Babington of the Associated Press and he stated that Pelosi has been able to raise more money than anyone else in the political realm for herself and others with the exception of the President.  This made me wonder and question the validity of the funds because it has been proven although basically ignored that President Obama used illegal funds to support his and other's campaigns.  If Pelosi is doing so well especially during an economic downturn can it be fully within the laws of political campaigns and donations?  There are very strict limits on how much PACs, individuals, businesses, and party members can donate in each election but somehow she is receiving more?
It is enough dishonesty that allowed dead and imprisoned people to vote for Democrats in recent elections but to be receiving and accepting illegal funds that clearly tear down the laws of this country that they should be upholding?  That is a disgrace.