pageviews
It’s basketball season, which means that our campus is once again bleeding Hoya blue. Excitement ran high after we crushed Michigan 74-52 at our last home game. But while everyone else was screaming the fight song, a friend of mine was having a nationality crisis.
She is the quintessential international Hoya—half French, half Filipino, she was born in Venezuela and raised in Singapore. (And yes, she’s in the SFS). Which explains why she might not know all of the words to our national anthem. And sure, she wasn’t wild about placing her hand over her heart and staring at the American flag, waving high above our heads in the stadium rafters. What America had to do with basketball, she wasn’t sure, though she was willing to play along. But the climax of the anthem inspired in her a profound sense of isolation, as she stood surrounded by her apparently reverent American peers. It prompted a question I stumbled over, whose answer seemed at once obvious and uncomfortable. She asked me why Americans cheer at the words “the land of the free.”
It’s true—every time I’ve heard the Star Spangled Banner, the applause is loudest at our anthem’s natural climax, the word “free” striking the song’s highest note. Nowadays, the anthem is linked to the stadium crowd, to hot-dog-and-popcorn-toting fans clutching extra-large slurpees to their chests as they murmur along with the celebrity vocalist du jour. “The land of the free” is a phrase both sets of fans in the stadium can agree on; it may be the only time during the game that the two sides are cheering for the same reason. Watching my bewildered friend describe our reaction as the “American swagger,” I couldn’t help but think of the political visions for America in 2008. For me, it begs the question, which side of the political spectrum is really fighting for the land of the free?
Americans are divided on more issues than Congress can legislate in a decade. So, too, are they divided on what freedom means for America. Democrats and Republicans alike cheer along with the stadium fans when talking about America as a free nation. But the Land of the Free is a big claim to make—and a liberal opinion of our country is not without its share of censure. Truthfully, many aspects of America are not all that free. Antiquated laws prevent certain marriages on no justifiable basis, and many poor children still receive little or no medical care. And while conservatives are all vying for the best way to defend our country from an elusive enemy, a Democratic administration will be faced with the weighty task of correcting the fractured image of America abroad. A Republican administration, on the other hand, seems to envision freedom from taxes, gun control, and atheists. Many of the issues dividing the parties boil down to various “freedoms from” and “freedoms to”—gay marriage, border control, abortion, the War on Terror, tax reform, the 2nd amendment, and civil rights, to name a few. Though the Republicans are heralded as the patriot’s party, conservative campaign slogans such as Tancredo’s “It’s your culture: fight for it!” seem to fly in the face of any logical understanding of freedom.
As a liberal, I do my fair share of critiquing the current government. But I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to stand with my hand over my heart and sing our national anthem. Yet I am not fully confident when our collective voices reach that highest note. The land of the free is a vision for the future, it is about hope and about progress. A successful Democratic administration must not compromise our freedoms for power’s sake. But just like that old joke, maybe that’s why Francis Scott Key put “freedom” such a high note—because it’s so hard to reach.
As I’ve obsessively watched the race for the GOP nomination, I have noticed that despite its vicissitudes and seeming volatility, one thing has remained constant: Republican voters have consistently underestimated their best (perhaps only) chance of retaining the White House in 2008.
John McCain is not someone I like, but he’s someone I can respect. It’s not just that he’s a bona fide war hero. It’s not just that he has more governing experience than Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson combined. He’s the only Republican in the race with any semblance of integrity.
McCain didn’t just come out of nowhere or invent an identity to run for president. Look at the rest of the Republican field. Fred Thompson was undistinguished as a US Senator, and seems to have been largely drafted into the race by deceptively optimistic poll numbers; a wealthy lobbyist and Washington insider, he’s now being marketed as the simple man’s pickup-truck-and-gun-show candidate. Giuliani and Romney have been tripping over themselves downplaying and apologizing for their past liberal positions. Despite the extensive repackaging they’ve gone through, the only reason they’re still contenders is because they’ve had the good fortune of being mayor on 9/11 and rich, respectively. Ron Paul is still a joke; and –though he’s run a fine campaign—who the hell is Mike Huckabee?
In the parlance of our times, McCain is legit. Unlike the rest of the field, he’s running as himself, not McCain 2.0 (New and Improved), McCain* (A True Conservative - Since April 2002), or John! (Now With Personality). He may be a warmonger and an idiot, but at least you know his belligerence and stupidity are genuine and not the highly-polished product of a skilled marketing campaign to appeal to the jingoistic and dim-witted Republican electorate.
I’ve heard Republicans say that the very fact that liberals like me can respect John McCain suggests that he is too much of a moderate to be nominated by the modern GOP. But if you look at his opponents, Giuliani is clearly the most socially liberal and Huckabee is much farther to the left on economic issues, while Ron Paul takes that honor in the realm of foreign policy.
Like Barack Obama, McCain has centrist appeal without actually being a centrist on policy. Despite his reputation as a ‘maverick’, for the most part McCain’s independent image is greatly exaggerated. He has taken a lot of very public, seemingly audacious stances, breaking GOP taboos by shunning the religious right, supporting campaign finance reform, opposing Bush on torture, and taking a moderate stance on illegal immigration. Although he ultimately caved to the right on all of these issues except campaign finance, he still gets a lot of the credit for it and to this day is mistakenly referred to as independent by the media.
Republican primary voters have rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to nominate somewhat as conservative as McCain who is simultaneously adored by the media and popular among independent voters.
Thank God they’re too stupid to realize it.
So you’re probably a relatively normal person, and as a result not nearly as excited as I am about the Republican CNN-YouTube debate on November 28th. But if you didn’t watch the Democratic counterpart in July, they actually asked some fairly original and even challenging questions that you’d never hear come out of Wolf Blitzer’s mouth.
That’s why I strongly encourage everyone with a video camera to submit your own questions for the Republican candidates by the November 25 deadline. This is your chance to call out Romney, bewilder Mike Huckabee, embarrass Rudy Giuliani, make Anderson Cooper blush, or simply make life awkward for everyone involved. Just imagine the possibilities. Are you imagining? Ok, fine, I’ll imagine for you:
This is for all the candidates who oppose embryonic stem cell research:
Imagine that a building is on fire- In one room is a dish containing three human embryos; in the other, a newborn baby. You only have time to save one. Which would you choose?
The genius of this question (which I sadly cannot claim credit for) is that for pro-life Republicans, there truly is no right answer. Since they purport that each embryo is a human life, the logical conclusion would be to save the embryos rather than the baby. But any politician who says they would save a Petri dish over a baby would come off as inhuman and unfeeling. On the other hand, if they say they would save the newborn they are essentially conceding that embryos aren’t the same value as human life, and by extension, the sort of ‘life’ that exists at conception is not equal to that of a living, breathing human. That’s why I love this question and suggest you use it to put Republicans on the spot whenever possible.
For Ron Paul:
On your website you warn Americans of a plan to build a NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada, as part of a larger plot by powerful special interest groups to unite The United States, Mexico, and Canada into one nation by the North American Union. Why haven’t we heard more about this grave threat to US sovereignty in the main stream media?
This is actually the least condescending version of this question I could come up with. It also works in regards to the 17th Amendment, the gold standard, the United Nations- or any other radical position that he generally avoids talking about. Essentially, I would love to make the coalition of pseudo-anarchists, misguided stoners, and naïve college students aware that their man is a legitimate nut job.
For Mitt Romney:
In 1994, you claimed that you would be a better advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Now? Not so much. What has changed since ’94 to account for this shift: your principles, your target audience, or the gays?
You get the idea.
Sadly, I am stranded in the barrens of Western New York without a video camera; but for all of you with the technological means, this is your chance to give your favorite Republican candidate a proverbial bitch slap --phrased in the form of a question, of course. Good luck!
http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate
In a strategic move that would make Josh Lyman proud, Senate Democrats are working every third day this week in order to prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments. According to congressional and Constitutional rules, the Senate needs to meet on the day following three consecutive days off to remain "in session". And by keeping the Senate in session (and out of recess), Senate Dems can keep Bush from making any recess appointments.
If anyone is worried about this strategy keeping Democratic Senators away from home on this holiday weekend, you should be reassured by what these pro forma sessions actually entail. In each case, a Senator (Jim Webb D-VA, Byron Dorgan D-ND, and Jack Reed D-RI have volunteered to participate) opens a session and then closes it again. In all, the process takes less than half a minute.
And with that little effort, the Senate has been able to prevent a series of controversial under-the-radar appointments. The leadership was most concerned about Bush's nominee for Surgeon General, James Holsinger Jr., who has a record of being prejudiced towards the LGBT community. What does Bush think qualifies Holsinger to be America's doctor? Well, I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with Hope Springs Community Church. Holsinger was an original founder of the Church that "ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian." Holsinger believes that homosexuality is "an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle." I'm happy that the man who might be our next Surgeon General has such a firm grasp on these issues...
So in light of the nightmare situation that has been avoided, on this Thanksgiving I'm giving thanks for the quick-thinking Senate Dems leadership...
You know we live in a strange world when we have spent $1.3 trillion on a misguided adventure that has made us significantly less secure, and yet we have been able to significantly improve our national security with a different effort that required only $100 million (1/13,000 of the cost). But such are the life and times of the Bush administration.
The two events I am referring to are the war in Iraq and an effort to finance the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
A new report released by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee places the total cost of the war in Iraq at $1.3 trillion (so far). To put that in perspective, that would cost $16,500 for the average family of four. And what has the war in Iraq accomplished? It has tarnished America’s image around the world, decreasing our ability to work with foreign governments to fight terrorism and increasing anti-Americanism that directly leads to terrorism. At the same time, it has destabilized the Middle East, threatening American political and economic interests in the region.
On the other hand, since 2001, the Bush administration has commendably provided $100 million to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons. As Joe Biden likes to assert, the real concern about nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world is not Iran (who is years away from developing a nuclear weapon), but instead Pakistan. Many of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities are not adequately secure, and Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was found to have sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Due to this lack of nuclear security, there is a real risk that Islamic fundamentalists could obtain a nuclear weapon, which could then be used against the United States. In addition, Musharraf’s government is not at all stable, as he has faced three assassination attempts since 2003. If his regime were to collapse, Islamic fundamentalists could take control of the country’s nuclear arsenal. While there have been problems regarding the implementation of the nuclear security program, it is exactly the kind of effort that makes our nation more secure in a 21st-century world.
Instead of spending $1.3 trillion on a war that has made our nation less safe, we should have put the focus on financing these more mundane initiatives, such as the effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, that actually make America safer and do it at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s approach with regard to Iraq was “shoot first, ask questions later."
Yesterday, a United Nations scientific panel announced that global warming is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can prevent it and its repercussions. The war over global warming has been raging for many years; in fact, I feel like it has been for my entire life. Yet, leading Republican officials and presidential candidates, like the illustrious Fred Thompson, continue to deny the existence of global warming and claim that liberals and progressives are overstating the dangers and the facts. Whether Friday’s U.N. report will help to convince some of the doubters remains to be seen, but it is another event which underscores the importance of global warming for not only American politics and American society, but the entire planet.
My question, then, is why aren’t we talking about this more? Why is this not a crucial aspect of the presidential race, and a crucial talking point in society? Why doesn’t everybody know the candidates’ views? Why are we allowing this, even after Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, to be a secondary issue? I cannot answer these questions definitively. It may be that we are afraid to admit that the lifestyle we enjoy so much could be destroying our planet. Maybe admitting that our past and our present need to be drastically critiqued, and our behavior needs to be changed harms a view of American superiority. Perhaps people, like Mr. Thompson, really are this stupid. All I know is that I don’t know. However, regardless of our ignorance and avoidance, this reality is inexcusable.
Politicians often say that they are working to build a better, safer, stronger, more prosperous America for today. But surely, we must admit that working to ensure America’s survival, to ensure that our children, grandchildren, and everyone else down the line can attain these things is also an important goal. Thus, we cannot allow for more evidence to come in until we take action. We must start right now, right away, and work to ensure the preservation of our planet. I am, by no means, a crazed environmentalist. But even I can realize that the time has come, the writing is on the wall, and we need to do something about this. We need to make this an issue that America cares about first. And only then will the politicians truly begin to take notice.
It is an old story, the 2006 midterm elections. Buoyed by voters' opposition to the Republican status quo, the Democrats found themselves with majorities in both houses of Congress. For liberals across the country, it was like an early Christmas present: after having spent the past six years being trodden upon by uncaring, corrupt, and incompetent Republicans, the forces of progressive goodness could at last claim the powers of the legislature as their own. Though voters had much to frown at, the issue that topped them all was the War in Iraq and the management thereof. While a significant majority of the electorate disapproved of the war's handling or expressed support for some form of troop withdrawal, the position of the Left in the Democratic Party can be summarized easily: bring the troops home now.
It is with these demands that the 110th Congress have been grappling, but all attempts to end the War in Iraq or to minimize American involvement in any significant way have been met with a clear resistance from Congressional Republicans and the White House. Most recently, a Democratically sponsored $50 billion funding bill for the war, the money conditional on redeploying the troops to specific missions and completing the process by mid-December next year, failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. Even if the bill had passed, President Bush would have vetoed it, just as he vetoed a spending bill in May that also had troop withdrawal conditions. The Democrats in Congress are repeatedly running into the same brick wall with the same results: nothing is getting done.
Democratic leaders, I would think, recognize that, regardless of how greatly the public might disapprove of the war, nothing will get done. President Bush has staked his political legacy on the war, and he isn't about to admit that it failed. Why, then, does the Democratic Congress continue to play this game? Naturally, it is impossible to read the minds of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but here's a guess: Hillary Clinton & Co. are not the only ones looking for success in the upcoming 2008 elections. The entire House of Representatives, in addition to a third of the Senate, are also up for re-election, and they have to look after their own interests. Casting a vote in favor of in some way limiting the extent of the War in Iraq makes for a catchy soundbite and looks good to constituents at home, even if that vote had no actual policy impact. In a broader context, Congress as a whole could use a bit of a boost. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Congress's approval rating at 19 percent (for purposes of comparison, the same poll put Bush's approval rating at 31 percent -- yes, Virginia, there is an institution more unpopular than our current head of state). Imagine how much lower it would be if Congress didn't even bother to try fulfilling its mandate.
Assuming, of course, that it is possible for that number to get any smaller.
The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.
On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?
A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.
Run a search for the word “Liberal” in Google. Just a few entries down, underneath the Wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions, is Conservapedia.com’s ever-brilliant perspective. Yes, it’s their word now. The conservative website (self-titled “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”) defines liberalism in a nut shell, beginning with the “denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)” and including “support of obscenity and pornography”, “limits [to] conservative talk radio”, and “opposition to a strong American foreign policy.” The accompanying illustration, The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat, provides a nice summary of today’s understanding of Liberals and their silly, self-serving, and anti-American principles.
The term “Liberal” now brands Democratic politicians—it has become an insult rather than a political position. The word is thrown around with a new conservative spin, using phrases such as “the liberal media,” “tax-and-spend liberal,” and “dirty liberal hippie” to disparage ideals once considered to be Democratic. The 21st century Liberal is imprudent, radical, even silly—and to be labeled a Liberal is political suicide. But its connotation now extends far beyond the limits of its definition; indeed, popular understanding has altogether changed the meaning of the term. Today’s most powerful Democrats refuse to call themselves Liberals, instead opting for the elusive “Progressive” label. What the substantive difference is between these two ideologies is unclear, except that the former has been hijacked by the conservative wing to represent all that is wrong with the Democratic Party in general.
First of all, let’s go back to the origins of the word “Liberal”. Having its root in the word for freedom, to be liberal is to be generous, tolerant, open, and understanding. Outside of a political context, one can give liberally, have liberal amounts of, or be liberal-minded. And Liberalism as a political ideology emphasizes freedom and equality, insisting on individual rights and equal opportunity. Now, that doesn’t sound silly to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like the platform of a Progressive—or whatever it is that the Democrats are calling themselves these days. Yet Democrats have developed an aversion to the word, succumbing to the negative spin placed upon it by conservatives. Conservatives would logically demonize Liberals—after all, they are proponents of fundamentally different values and policies. Fending off the Liberal label only legitimizes the conservative smear campaign aimed at making the Democrats into something ridiculous. But why are Democrats running from the very principles that define their Party? If they are looking for conservative approval, they are certainly not going to find it by touting Progressivism in its stead.
To be sure, the Democrats are trying to cultivate a less “radical” image to appeal to a wider audience (for wider audience, read centrist voters). Liberalism no longer represents the noble ideals the Democratic Party once stood for—instead, it seems to belong in the derogatory word pool with the Commies and the Fascists. There is no conservative equivalent to this rejected term. Calling someone a conservative merely describes his or her political position, one with which you can agree or disagree. Whereas Democrats plug their ears when they hear the word ‘Liberal’, ‘Conservative’ just doesn’t have the same ring. Republicans stand their ground on conservative issues, while Democrats waver self-consciously between left and center. They are eager to please and easy to upset, and as a result have cultivated an image insecure in their own principles. The refusal to embrace the term is a concession of sorts, admitting that there is something ridiculous about the Democratic Party. Our fear of the word ‘Liberal’ gives ammunition to the conservative campaign against the very values Democrats claim to hold.
Political success does involve compromise, and alienating more moderate voters will undoubtedly prove fruitless. But it doesn’t have to, and indeed it must not, involve sacrifice. Relinquishing control of the Liberal label to the conservatives is a political defeat that extends beyond the thesaurus. The truth is, Democrats are liberals—but liberal is not synonymous with radical. We must recover ‘liberal’ from the conservative smear machine and reestablish it in terms of truly Democratic values. ‘Liberal’ is not a dirty word, and a Liberal by any other name is still a Liberal.
I was walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
