Every four years Americans wrap themselves into a frenzy regarding the presidential election. In the last eight years, the presidential election has centered around a candidate disliked by at least half his own country and majority of the world, and a candidate liked by a little more than half his home country and majority of the world. In both the 2004 and 2008 elections, money was spent and attention was paid to each of the two political parties and their tickets. The candidates were intensely scrutinized and their backgrounds were poured through immensely. Yet, despite all this attention the nation seems to give presidential elections, the lower ballot elections go largely unmentioned about if not unnoticed altogether.
These lower ballot elections are sometimes just as important-if not more- than the presidential elections. As we see today with the House and Senate trying to reach a conclusion on whether or not to fund the Automotive Industry. In the wake of home foreclosures and financial institutions failing at every turn, citizens truly get a chance to see just how it is the Congressional body that does most of the legislative heavy lifting. Now more than ever, should citizens be paying attention to newly elected Congressmen and women. Candidates such as Steve Driehaus won Ohio's 1st District seat on the back of President-elect Obama.
Congressmen-elect Driehaus ousted an incumbent who had won re-election in six straight elections. He did so on the back of about a 27% African-American voter turnout in his district. Many of those who turned out and voted Driehaus in were undoubtedly looking for change. It must be noted though, that Driehaus is a self professing fiscal conservative who is anti-abortion. With these principles (particularly fiscal conservatism) it is less than likely that Congressman-elect Driehaus will be supportive of any of President-elect Obama's ambitious and expansive spending packages. Without the support of his own party's Congressmen, President-elect Obama will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.
Unfortunately Obama supporters will have no one to blame but themselves. The reason being is that Driehaus never lied about who he was and how he approached politics. His campaign website and literature was very clear about his position. He also played up his party affiliation with Barack Obama as well. And why wouldn't he, there is no logical reason why he shouldn't. But for voters old enough to remember the 1964 election, this has to feel familiar. A great deal of Congressional seats were filled with candidates running on the coattails of Lyndon B. Johnson. These same Democrats fought tooth and nail against many of Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" legislative agenda items. Voters voted these people in not because they were the candidate that best spoke to their needs, but because there was a "D" after their name.
Malcolm X was quoted as saying "of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research." This statement is as true now as it was he parted his lips to utter it. Students, citizens, and scholars alike need to pay keen attention to coattail politics. This type of politics that all candidates of a given party are greeted as having the same principles, values and ideas. History has shown us that this is not true. One would like to think that voters have come a long way since Johnson's election in 1964. That voters are politically astute enough to not make the same mistake twice. But the ability of voters to learn their lesson from history is probably best summed up by the current commander-in-chief "fool me once,shame on you; fool me... you can't get fooled again".
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Individuals vs. Institutions
Overthrowing a government can be hard work. This doesn't happen often but history has shown us at various points this can be necessary. For most people though, overthrowing the government isn't the objective. Many are satisfied with a few changes to things. However, many have come into prominence as agents of change only to realize the institution ultimately controls the people rather than the people controlling the institution. Sadly this can alter the actions of a person with even the best intentions. Most observers don't necessarily recognize this though. They see a person and judge them on the final outcome as opposed to the factors that made up that result. People often ignore the institution that serves as the invisible hand controlling things.
We can first look at the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King spent much of his adult life working to tear down the walls of segregation. His early work was based in the South where he saw racism at its brutal and most basic level. He thought by appealing to the nation's best qualities he would be able to right the wrongs of injustice. Dr. King used the media to illuminate the violence and terror experienced by southern Blacks in efforts to rally support of northern Whites. He was largely successful at this. His approach resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that struck down legal segregation. When Dr. King turned his sights to the north he realized a different story. His work in the north convinced him that racism was much larger than simply a few heinous people in the South who did not want to intermingle with Blacks, but rather it was an institutional construct that was steeped in capitalism. King soon fell from grace when he began to make these observations public. Ultimately though, King realized that what he was fighting against was less individuals and their practices but the institutions that facilitated those behaviors.
King is not the only figure to recognize this. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publicly that there is a need for a Palestinian State. He also said neglect to create one would result in Israel engaging in an apartheid comparable to South Africa's. These are stern words and I am sure that Prime Minister Olmert is well aware of the gravity of his statements. However, what he is also well aware of is how unpopular that idea is in context of the people he represents. What he is then left to do, is try and be as fair as possible while understanding the limits and confines his institution puts on his position. Olmert is not the only world leader to make this recognition. Former United States president Jimmy Carter has been quite vocal on his opposition to some aspects of United States foreign policy. Some of these foreign policies Carter himself had tacitly endorsed as president of the United States. Carter has been regarded as an agent for justice and democracy on the world scene, but it was his administration that secretly funded Afghan fighters that were keeping Soviet Union forces out of Afghanistan.
The conflict in Darfur is one that really magnifies the issue of institutions. Journalist Glen Ford wrote about how much attention is given to Darfur as a world crisis and everyone wants to help. He goes on to say what people often ignore is that the country that does the most to "solve" this problem will more than likely reap the benefits of the oil rich region. In this instance we can see that many who are grassroots activist for ending the terror in Darfur aren't interested in the profits that can gained by oil companies. However a by-product of United States intervention is the economic gains that stand to be made. Ideally we would love to see a humanitarian situation be resolved where the United States doesn't gain anything. However, history suggests that while we hold out hope and continue to be optimistic, we should also be cautious and guarded.
This is not to suggest individuals do not have good hearts. This is not even to say that some people don't go into their jobs with good intentions. This is to magnify the fact that when we look at events that take place on the world stage, be they foreign or domestic, it is important we look at the institution operating behind the scenes. Often times, these institutions make it so that no situation is really just black or white. These institutions have specific interest that need to be examined. Sadly more often than not, history teaches us that this interest is money. Most casual observers can recognize that when money is the interest, morals get perverted. As we examine the way we want to see the world, we should concentrate a good deal on the individuals, but a keen eye must be kept on institutions.
We can first look at the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King spent much of his adult life working to tear down the walls of segregation. His early work was based in the South where he saw racism at its brutal and most basic level. He thought by appealing to the nation's best qualities he would be able to right the wrongs of injustice. Dr. King used the media to illuminate the violence and terror experienced by southern Blacks in efforts to rally support of northern Whites. He was largely successful at this. His approach resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that struck down legal segregation. When Dr. King turned his sights to the north he realized a different story. His work in the north convinced him that racism was much larger than simply a few heinous people in the South who did not want to intermingle with Blacks, but rather it was an institutional construct that was steeped in capitalism. King soon fell from grace when he began to make these observations public. Ultimately though, King realized that what he was fighting against was less individuals and their practices but the institutions that facilitated those behaviors.
King is not the only figure to recognize this. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publicly that there is a need for a Palestinian State. He also said neglect to create one would result in Israel engaging in an apartheid comparable to South Africa's. These are stern words and I am sure that Prime Minister Olmert is well aware of the gravity of his statements. However, what he is also well aware of is how unpopular that idea is in context of the people he represents. What he is then left to do, is try and be as fair as possible while understanding the limits and confines his institution puts on his position. Olmert is not the only world leader to make this recognition. Former United States president Jimmy Carter has been quite vocal on his opposition to some aspects of United States foreign policy. Some of these foreign policies Carter himself had tacitly endorsed as president of the United States. Carter has been regarded as an agent for justice and democracy on the world scene, but it was his administration that secretly funded Afghan fighters that were keeping Soviet Union forces out of Afghanistan.
The conflict in Darfur is one that really magnifies the issue of institutions. Journalist Glen Ford wrote about how much attention is given to Darfur as a world crisis and everyone wants to help. He goes on to say what people often ignore is that the country that does the most to "solve" this problem will more than likely reap the benefits of the oil rich region. In this instance we can see that many who are grassroots activist for ending the terror in Darfur aren't interested in the profits that can gained by oil companies. However a by-product of United States intervention is the economic gains that stand to be made. Ideally we would love to see a humanitarian situation be resolved where the United States doesn't gain anything. However, history suggests that while we hold out hope and continue to be optimistic, we should also be cautious and guarded.
This is not to suggest individuals do not have good hearts. This is not even to say that some people don't go into their jobs with good intentions. This is to magnify the fact that when we look at events that take place on the world stage, be they foreign or domestic, it is important we look at the institution operating behind the scenes. Often times, these institutions make it so that no situation is really just black or white. These institutions have specific interest that need to be examined. Sadly more often than not, history teaches us that this interest is money. Most casual observers can recognize that when money is the interest, morals get perverted. As we examine the way we want to see the world, we should concentrate a good deal on the individuals, but a keen eye must be kept on institutions.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
What's the Big Idea
I had a recent conversation with a friend of mine about exchanging ideas. He expressed frustration at the thought that in college people weren't really wrestling with ideas. I thought this to be absurd seeing as though you hear some of the most far reaching theories, idealogies and viewpoints on college campuses. But he reminded me that a few people hold may hold bold and daring views but students in group, don't really wreslte with varying ideas. I didn't and don't necessarily agree with his assertion , but I do feel he underscored a valuable point. In much of our converstaion (espescially regarding politics) we don't really wreslte with varying and competing ideas. There may be language and rhetoric that suggest we debate points, but a close examination shows we may just be going in circles.
With the nation in a valley of excitement, between the election and inaguration of President-elect Obama we can look start there to examine the thought of competing ideas. Many in the media praise the President-elect for forming a team of rivals with his administration appointments thus far. However that can be debated. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post Sen. Clinton, much like Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones all think the best way to restore the United States global image is through co-operation with multinational organizations. They aren't opposed to war by any means, but they all feel that the most effective way to cast the United States in the best light would be through what Gerson called "soft diplomacy."
Let me begin with saying I don't necessarily disagree with that foreign policy approach but there is not much in the way of competing ideas. The goal is the same (which is to be expected): how to get the United States back in the world's good graces. The ideas however are also the same. The premise of a team of rivals is to pit people who would have competing ideas against each other in order to come out with the strongest most viable idea. If the conversation starts with people who have the same idea, than there is nothing to be gained because new streams of thought aren't at play.
Further evidence of this is the 2004 Presidential Election. One thing people didn't like was that both candidates from the major parties were Yale graduates who belonged to the Skull and Bones Secret Society. It becomes quite hard to trust that one idea is different from another idea if they both come the same background and ilk. That was one of the reason (among many) that Senator John Kerry lost his Presidential bid. The 2008 Georgia Senate race was so close that it demanded a run-off...between two collegiate fraternity brothers. The Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss decisively defeated the Democrat Jim Martin in the run-off. In an election galvanized around change, the choice many in Georgia had were one Sigma Chi brother or another. This is no disrespect to their organization, but I'm sure their ideas and views are not that far off, despite different party affiliations.
More than advocating for a particular position, I encourage people to challenge their own thoughts and ideas by informing themselves of differing points of view. Sometime that can be difficult because what we think is different could simply be the same thing packaged in a new wrapper. Those who feel socialism is a great idea should read Wealth of Nations (if they already have not) and begin to engage those points and ideas. Likewise those who live to extol the virtues of free-market capitalism might want to spend some time with Marx's Communist Manifesto. No matter what your thoughts are, ideas are only strengthened when they are challenged. Challenging ideas... now that's a big idea.
With the nation in a valley of excitement, between the election and inaguration of President-elect Obama we can look start there to examine the thought of competing ideas. Many in the media praise the President-elect for forming a team of rivals with his administration appointments thus far. However that can be debated. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post Sen. Clinton, much like Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones all think the best way to restore the United States global image is through co-operation with multinational organizations. They aren't opposed to war by any means, but they all feel that the most effective way to cast the United States in the best light would be through what Gerson called "soft diplomacy."
Let me begin with saying I don't necessarily disagree with that foreign policy approach but there is not much in the way of competing ideas. The goal is the same (which is to be expected): how to get the United States back in the world's good graces. The ideas however are also the same. The premise of a team of rivals is to pit people who would have competing ideas against each other in order to come out with the strongest most viable idea. If the conversation starts with people who have the same idea, than there is nothing to be gained because new streams of thought aren't at play.
Further evidence of this is the 2004 Presidential Election. One thing people didn't like was that both candidates from the major parties were Yale graduates who belonged to the Skull and Bones Secret Society. It becomes quite hard to trust that one idea is different from another idea if they both come the same background and ilk. That was one of the reason (among many) that Senator John Kerry lost his Presidential bid. The 2008 Georgia Senate race was so close that it demanded a run-off...between two collegiate fraternity brothers. The Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss decisively defeated the Democrat Jim Martin in the run-off. In an election galvanized around change, the choice many in Georgia had were one Sigma Chi brother or another. This is no disrespect to their organization, but I'm sure their ideas and views are not that far off, despite different party affiliations.
More than advocating for a particular position, I encourage people to challenge their own thoughts and ideas by informing themselves of differing points of view. Sometime that can be difficult because what we think is different could simply be the same thing packaged in a new wrapper. Those who feel socialism is a great idea should read Wealth of Nations (if they already have not) and begin to engage those points and ideas. Likewise those who live to extol the virtues of free-market capitalism might want to spend some time with Marx's Communist Manifesto. No matter what your thoughts are, ideas are only strengthened when they are challenged. Challenging ideas... now that's a big idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
