Obama: The Perfect Martyr

The recent proposed legislation on net neutrality brought with it the fact that, candidate Barack Obama promised to provide a neutral internet while in office. Campaign promises are a tricky matter because, some see them as gospel, while pragmatic folk see them as a necessary evil to get elected. Commitments should be kept, but the reality of office, and the world’s most hectic job, shows just how difficult it is to follow through on promises.

Obama’s rise to the presidency, with soaring rhetoric and a mandate to change the way government operated, had a tremendous message and was a precision machine that fired on all cylinders. Once the operation moved to the capital, rust, gunk buildup, and other agents of sluggery slowed the machine to a snail’s pace. This fact makes President Obama the perfect example of ambition versus realism in American politics. Yet, when looking at the President’s accomplishments, a different story starts to emerge. Using Politifact’s database of campaign promises and whether or not they were kept, Obama has fulfilled more than two times the amount of promises broken.

Broken Promises Vs. Promises Kept:

President Obama has kept 240 promises but who focuses on such successful measures?

The amount of promises broken become scrutinized, no matter their number. President Obama has only broken 115 promises, with net neutrality potentially being number 116, and broken promises are always more glaring and easy to pick apart. This also shows how strong the media focus is on negativity in politics.

No wonder the American people despise the system constructed to represent them, if they are only getting the bad half of the story. The American people may like the occasional mudslinging, but the tiresome antics on the political stage have made a population wary. This should be eye opening for politicians who want to win elections which would, in turn, result in a “Run on what you’ve accomplished and not what your opponent hasn’t” mentality, but that has yet to be seen.

The purpose here is not to exonerate the President’s mistakes, but to highlight how we perceive politicians and their promises. Obama did not follow through on closing the abhorrent prisons at Guantanamo Bay, close tax loopholes used by Big Oil, increase the national minimum wage, or have increased transparency in government. The practical among us in 2008 would have said such actions were unlikely to happen from the start, not because of the politician but because of politics. This sentiment is going to make Barack Obama the perfect martyr for future change.

Signposts for Bad Government:

The President won in 2008 because of an unprecedented level of youth support. These young people, the minds behind Lazy Activism among them, believed that the system of entrenched interests was about to get a thwacking that would lead to a more productive government for the rest of our young lives. Yet, the opposite happened, and it must be noted how many positive things the Obama administration has accomplished, since this point is more in regards to the inactivity of the Congress.

Perhaps, because of the president’s race, or assumed political beliefs, government almost stopped functioning completely on several occasions. This process has shown the young people who were so invested seven years ago, that government does not work.

This is dangerously untrue. Government does work when the people who are apart of it want to work. The system is rigged and broken, the processes slow and antiquated. There is plenty of disillusionment to go around, but the majority has been placed on the President’s shoulders, which is unfair.

Obama was an idealist in a world of hardened realists. The real disappointment should lie in the monetarily based, sludge-caked system that is the American government. Obama is the best representation to show the youth of this country just how convoluted and idiotic the current system is. And this does not only apply to leftist youths, but to all young people who will inherit the future and its ways of governance.

It should be a wake up call for young people to challenge established ways of government and business, by changing it from the inside. Government is a problem right now, but it doesn’t have to be the problem of the future.

All those youths who voted for Obama have decades left to vote and decades left to progress. Hopefully they are paying attention to what is happening around them now, and learn from those mistakes so they can take that doe eyed optimism and turn it into a steely resolve to fix the future.

Raging Republican Rhetoric

Politics in America have always been a ferocious affair, but incendiary language, and the idea of an endless struggle against government, have shifted from heat-of-the-moment thoughts into a solidified mindset. This way of thinking is predominantly present in the Republican party and their various factions.
There are many noteworthy things said by those that affiliate with the Right, but there are certain statements that are cause for alarm.

The Struggle is Real…to Some:

The erosion of liberties, rights, and privacy are real issues that need to be addressed in America, but, to those on the Right, they aren’t so much a matter of politics as they are declarations of war. There is a sense of paranoia and a creeping feeling that imagines the government hiding in dark alleys and behind every corner. As evident by the matters of criminal Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, there are those in America that feel everyday is a battle for survival from big brother.

Those in the struggle say that a complacent mind can easily be controlled, but that’s just an excuse for their wild behavior and rhetoric. Americans do need to preserve their rights, but living in a state of fear and paranoia will not accomplish such things. An academic study of legislation and real-world incidents should be observed in order to address government overreach, not a rigid view that government is evil no matter what.

With such a mindset, it is no small wonder that aggressive, often violent, rhetoric is used by people who see themselves in constant struggle against a powerful enemy. There was “Kill the Bill” in regards to an immigration proposal, and the NRA’s “Stand and Fight” moniker. Those are just official, publizied slogans, but there are countless more instances in everyday speech which brings violent imagery to mind.
A Baltimore Sun article hilights some cases from the 2010 elections that shed light on offensive actions and words by Republicans.

• On Oct. 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s initials on it.
• On Jan. 10, 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke of the need for “Second Amendment remedies” to congressional policies, and specifically called for “taking out” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
• On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goehring from California’s 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to ‘thin’ the herd.”

While it is tempting to call Republicans the gun party, many democrats support the misinterpreted 2nd amendment as well, but one thing can be said with certainty: no one loves showing off their guns quite like the Right.

These weapons are included in almost any political action taken by the Republicans. Whether it be Mitch McConnell awkwardly holding a rifle on stage, or when Alabama Congressional hopeful Will Brooke, shot a copy of the Affordable Care Act with his personal arsonal. Then there is the infamous Ted Nugent, who eloquently critized President Obama by stating:

I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up,” he said, adding “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun.

Guns are apart of their identity, but guns are weapons and, no matter if you think they start conflicts or end them, they are tools of violence.

Another gun related bit of Republican vitriol was Sarah Palin’s infamous map as seen above.

This map shows, in the most delicate of ways, candidates that were vulnerable to losing to Republican candidates. Instead of using a sentence like the one just written, Palin says “We’ve diagnosed the problem…help us find the solution”. That statement alone isn’t inflammatory, but when gun crosshairs are placed over weak democrats, the solution to her problem must be to use weapons to remove them. Hopefully Sarah, being the rogue that she is, put this out without any peer consideration, since cooler heads would not allow such a suggestive message to be made public, but don’t count on it.

The Egyptian Autocracy Cycle

Yesterday, the Egyptian government sentenced 683 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to death for their roles in numerous clashes with the government.  Egypt was the largest Middle Eastern country to depose their autocratic ruler during the ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions, but it is not clear that any real progress has been made since the smoke cleared from the streets.

Dark Times On The Banks Of The Nile:

The Muslim Brotherhood has a storied history within Egyptian politics.  They were once part of subversive actions against the government, but recently have softened their Islamist agenda for a cohesive, stable Egypt. This message, in turn, led to huge political gains for the party after the ‘Arab ‘Spring’.

In Egypt’s first true democratic presidential election, Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, took home first prize, but power went to Morsi’s head. He granted himself unlimited and unchecked powers to ensure no one tried to harm the fledgling democracy.

Protesters once again took to the streets to rid themselves of another incompetent leader.  The military decreed that Morsi had forty-eight hours to leave his position or else they would intervene.  Morsi fled and the military once again took control of Egypt. This is exactly how power was obtained in the 1950’s and maintained until that one  fateful, tumultuous spring.

The cycle of bad governance in Egypt continues to spin as the military leaders ‘guarding’ the country are systematically eliminating their enemies.  The secular military and religious groups have never seen eye to eye, but there seemed to be a flicker of hope after the ousting of the entrenched government.  As evident by sending almost 700 people to death, the battle rages on.

As reported by Egyptian Streets, over 400 governmental security forces have been killed within the past nine months, as well as 1,000 civilians in clashes between the government, the Muslim Brotherhood, and neutral protestors; the amount of those in government captivity is estimated to be 20,000.

Just because the government sentenced these citizens to death does not spell certain doom for them just yet.  Every member can appeal their sentence, but with an already bias court, it looks grim.  These egregious moves by the military do not set a good precedent for the future of Egypt.  A few weeks past, the government similarily condemned 529 members of the brotherhood to death, but only thirty seven have had their sentneces confirmed.  Whether or not these men are guilty of  killing state sponsored security forces, the judicial process has been tainted..

In regards to the 529 members sentenced, the decision was made in two days time which is a complete farce.  The large majority of those sentenced to death are missing, or in hiding, leaving them to be tried in absentia.  If one is tried in absentia, the maximum sentence possible is given. Now if the person is ever caught or turns themselves in, they get their chance to a trial but, with the Egyptian military running things, it is a lose-lose..  The government has deemed them terrorists and, much like the past, will continue to eradicate them.

More Troubles Ahead:

But even more worrisome news came out of Egypt this week.  As reported by Al Jazeera, the Egpytian court has banned any activities by the April 6 Youth Movement.

The April 6 youth movement was instrumental during the ‘Arab Spring’ protests, and are not known for any sort of violent acts.  The movement was made up of young, secular, and educated people trying to fix their broken political system, but they were accused of tarnishing the reputation of the state even after they supported the overthrow of Morsi.

As any good democratic group would do, they began speaking out against the autocratic military who became another hindrance for their country.  This problem, coupled with the death sentences of hundreds of Muslim brotherhood members, shows that the military is clearing the board of opposition in hopes to retain indefinite power.  There is no transparency, no freedom of speech, and no political plurality freedoms to speak of.

Lazy Activism does not support Islamist messages and tactics, but the government’s tactics to wipe them out is going to backfire.  International groups and foreign governments condemned the act and, in regards to America, they are already withholding financial aid to Egypt due to poor behavior. The second problem for Egypt is that, when an Islamist is killed, two more recruits take his place. At this moment, the cycle of repression, violence, and brief hope seems poised to continue on and with no real end in sight.  Egypt cannot have a dictator, a selective justice system, and no political debate and then expect to become a flourishing, modern democracy.

Heroes of the Left

If you ask anyone on the right who the best political mind of all time is, the answer is going to be Ronald Reagan. Now if you ask someone on the left, you won’t get a uniform answer. This is not due to a lack of good politicians or progressive thinkers, but from a lack of hierarchy. The right has a defined power structure that all their loyal followers can recite in their sleep. Their heroes are well known.

They are the Fox News stalwarts, the embodiments of liberty that flutter through the news. They are constant and static, always espousing a cohesive message that people learn and become comfortable with. The absence of such an entity on the left has caused, and will continue to cause, major problems heading into the future. Currently, the only people held in reverence by the left are the topical buffoons of the right, people like the anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy, the ‘legitimate rape’ congressman Todd Akin, and the obstruction worker governor Chris Christie.

The “hero” of the left cannot be the embarrassment of the right. True leaders, activists, and thinkers need to represent progressive ideals to inspire the left. Showing how incompetent your opponent is, is a productive strategy in the short term but skipping from conservative yokel to conservative yokel isn’t building a liberal foundation, it’s just showing what you’re up against. It will be extremely beneficial to show people what American liberalism has to offer instead of warning people on how not to act.

Who Will Step Up?

Just because a clear hierarchy of progressive politicians dominate the landscape, doesn’t mean there aren’t candidates for such an organization. Al Gore almost achieved that status, but was mocked mercilessly by climate change deniers and regular skeptics who will rue their laughter now that climate change is finally accepted as scientific fact on a broad scale.

Former President Bill Clinton is another candidate for the upper echelons of the left, but his views tend to remain at the center of the political spectrum. Further, Clinton is absorbed in his charitable work internationally and cannot be a full time party voice. Paul Krugman is a leading progressive economist who is influential, but not loud whereas the likes of Bill Maher is loud, but lacks the influence that the demagogues of the right enjoy.

Perhaps this just illustrates the difference in expectations, and blind faith, by the two parties and their respective followers. There is an obvious candidate left out of the progressive hierarchy and that is President Obama.

If this article was written in 2008, then candidate Obama would have been the clear favorite to god father the party, and that sentiment might ultimately come to fruition, but anointing him in the hierarchy whilst still in office is troublesome. President Obama has accomplished many progressive achievements during his waning presidency, but there are many issues that he has caved on, losing him support amongst the far left.

Hierarchy from the Established or the Esteemed?

President Obama’s legacy is still evolving and his place at the head of the progressive movement is unsure, but there is no doubt all he has done so far for the party and those outside of it. Even President Reagan did not ascend into conservative dogma until after his time in office.

There are, however, some rising stars left of center. There is Wendy Davis, a Democrat member of the Texas Senate that made waves across the country when she led a popular filibuster to stall a harsh and restrictive abortion control law. Then there’s the upstart, newly elected mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio. De Blasio has already impressed the Democratic Party and their voting bloc by advocating free pre-kindergarten for the cities children.

In the next state over, Corey Booker, a newly elected Democratic Senator from New Jersey and past mayor of Newark, has the ambition and vision to become a long time Democratic voice. Booker has been rumored to seek a presidential run, which would surely benefit the country.

Traveling back to Texas finds twin brothers Joaquin and Julian Castro who represent the changing face of American citizenry. Making their national debut during the 2012 presidential election cycle, these two young men made a real name for themselves.

Living in Texas and being of Mexican descent, has made them attractive to the left. Joaquin is a Democratic Congressman and Julian is the Democratic Mayor of San Antonio. But none of these politicians are matching Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ascendancy to progressive stardom.

Warren is a first time senator but, through her views and strong will, has garnered support for a 2016 presidential bid. While she most likely will not run in 2016, Warren’s view on the minimum wage, student loan debt, and aggressive prosecution of those in the financial industry that brought about the recession, make her an appealing candidate. The left needs champions of causes to show the American people how their policies can bring equality, fairness, and compassion back into the political landscape.

Those on the right will continue to make the news with the stupid things they say and misdeeds they commit, but that should not take away from a strong backbone within the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

The Bizarre World of American Militias II: Lessons from Bundy

It is painful to write about such a bigoted and misguided man, but the Cliven Bundy saga won’t go away.  While it would be better for this rancher from Nevada to go back to talking to his cows and not the mainstream media, his views propel the discussion on race in America. It’s sad that, to make progress, we have to hit speed bumps stuck in the past like Bundy.

As Lazy Activism has already stated, Bundy and his ilk live in an amalgamation of America.  They physically reside in 2014 but, in their minds, General Washington still rows on the Potomac and the antebellum South was the height of civilization. It’s a version of America where every year since 1776 is combined, and no progress has been made.  It is both delusional and potentially dangerous.

Dangerous Mind, Dangerous Times:

Bundy was, to some, a patriot and to others a criminal.  He rallied militiamen and politicians alike to his cause but when the nation got to know Bundy more, his support dwindled.  In a New York Times article Bundy was exposed as the racist, old fashioned man many knew he was from the start.  Bundy candidly talks with reporter Adam Nagourney and says “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro” which he learned from his time in Las Vegas.  From this trip he reinforced preconceived notions about an entire people by stating to the Times:

“and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

After these remarks, Bundy’s political supporters fled, at least publicly, but the militiamen and supporters at his ranch cheered him on.

Bundy was praised on Sean Hannity’s show, but no mention of his racist remarks have graced Hannity’s teleprompter yet.  Presidential hopeful Rand Paul withdrew his support as well as Republicans from Nevada.  Over at Yahoo they have amassed a great list of Bundy supporters and their statements before his remarks and after. It is worth checking out.

Bundy’s mindset isn’t just held by one man, it’s held in the minds of many people.  He is the person that many right winger’s wish they could openly be.  Some, but not all, are afraid to come out of the bigotry closet.

A Dissection of The Mindset of Some Americans:

Bundy supporters say that its not about race but about the federal government which, to them, is true.  If such speech is supported then its not thought of as wrong and racist.  The message is about the government, anything else being said is just how they talk.  Bundy cannot help himself, cannot stop expressing what he believes.  As transcribed at Think Progress, Bundy was on CNN and further alienated the modern world by stating:

“I took this boot off so I wouldn’t put my foot in my mouth with the boot on. Let me see if I can say something. Maybe I sinned and maybe I need to ask forgiveness and maybe I don’t know what I actually said. But you know, when you talk about prejudice, we’re talking about not being able to exercise what we think and our feelings. We don’t have freedom to say what we want. If I call — if I say negro or black boy or slave, I’m not — if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offended, then Martin Luther King hasn’t got his job done then yet. They should be able to — I should be able to say those things and they shouldn’t offend anybody. I didn’t mean to offend them.”

Martin Luther King Jr. did not fail on any front.  Bundy, and those who agree with him, failed to listen to what was being said, failed to see progress happen before their eyes, and failed to adapt to a world bent on granting equality and human rights; one such human right being the right to freedom of speech.  Bundy can say whatever he likes, but we should exercise our right to ignore it.

That may sound hypocritical in the context of this article, but this is a learning experience, one America shouldn’t need to pay attention to the next time a white man with this mindset opens his mouth.  This situation is beneficial to America by creating a poster boy of what’s holding the country back.  The American citizenry has seen the antithesis of progress.

Governmental overreach is a problem that the public needs to deal with but, in the case of Bundy’s cattle, this is not the way. Yet Bundy, and the people that flocked to support him, willingly pit themselves against the government.  They cannot act with thinking of how it affects the system and, for every action, there is an authoritarian and opposite reaction in their minds.   Being at constant war with the government is extremely distracting and an extreme waste of time.

The Bizarre World of American Militias

By now most people are probably familiar with the story of rebel Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.  Bundy made the news because, for twenty years, he let his cattle illegally graze on federal land.  In America, when you break a law there are consequences and for Bundy they took the form of a $1 million dollar fine and confiscation of his cattle.  In performing these actions, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) arrested one of his thirteen children and tasered another, the video of which went viral.  Bundy, instead of admitting his mistake and taking steps to address the fines, took a stand saying he would not pay.  Cliven Bundy has been quoted as saying that he does not recognize the United States government’s existence.

The World of Anti-Government Extremism:

Due to the viral video, and Bundys ardent views, militiamen and ‘patriots’ from across the country flocked to Bundy’s ranch to join a standoff with federal agents.  There are said to be over one thousand militia members and supporters guarding Bundy’s ranch from future government intervention. Those that fantasized about being in war brought their guns and camo and are living out their fantasies. They are armed, and proud of it.

As reported by Think Progress, these groups recite the Constitution, Federalist papers, and anything uttered by the founding fathers in a religious like fervor.  Bundy himself carries around a copy of the Constitution in his breast pocket, which seems at odds with his views towards the existence of the American government, and there was even a George Washington impersonator who ate barbecue with the troops at the ranch.

Apparently, this world is one constantly at war with various factions intent on doing everything in their power to destroy the way of life that these specific Americans experience.  It should be noted that the militia members are not expert soldiers, and are more than likely ‘weekend warriors’ who like to get riled up.

In interviews by Think Progress, in the militia’s America, Obama was sending drones after militia members across the country, mercenary troops were hiding near the ranch, and the NSA was intensely monitoring all communication in the area.  While these do not sound at all different from events that have transpired in the recent past, and by the Obama administration, its the personal aspect that is troubling.  These militia members believe that they themselves are being singled out and hunted.

One individual who embodies this other, highly paranoid and volatile America is James Yeager.  Yeager is holed up at Bundy’s ranch and was quoted in the Think Progress piece as saying “if the BLM would have fired a shot, that would have been the second shot heard round the world.”  Yeager and his group look for open provocation to fulfill twisted fantasies of overcoming the government and letting liberty ring.

Yeager has made the news before when, in early 2013, he said that he wanted his fellow ‘patriots’ to fight back against gun safety legislation implementation  by explicity stating “if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do”,  following that up with “if this goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”  How is this an individual who loves his country and its citizens?

There must be some psychological ailment that constantly makes these individuals suspicious and pits them against authority figures. In their minds, there are always forces at war with someone, or something and this mentality cannot be a pleasant way to live your life. However the events at the Bundy ranch play out, and hopefully that is peacefully, the numbers surronding militia membership will swell as is evident by the graph below

A Rise in Numbers:

The number of militia members rose dramatically after the 2008 elections.  Make no mistake, this was because a black man was elected President and not just about big government, socialism, or the new world order like the militia would have you believe.  These groups gained prominence in the early 1990’s with rising numbers and peaked at the Oklahoma City bombings. The rise that is currently occurring seems to be following a similar path.  The Salon article and graph illustrate the rise of patriot groups and explains it with a down economy, gun safety legislation progression, immigration issues, and of course, the downfall of power held by white Americans.

In the world of subterfuge, war, and conspiracy that American militias exist in, there seems to be only one way to get what you want: show up in force with deadly weapons.  If people like Cliven Bundy hate the laws, they should petition their representatives or run for office themselves to change it.  Yet, that seems to be out of the question since they are so against the federal government, begging the question: what is there left to do?

The militias are waiting for one little spark to begin retaking a country that contains a large majority that abhor their delusional tactics.  There is no easy way for the government to deal with this, but measures need to be taken to remove the violence these groups can cause.  It should not take another Oklahoma City bombing, where 168 people died, including 19 small children,  for the government to act.

 

Oligarchy in the U.S.A.

In a landmark study,Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Pagehave found a scientific method to classify governing models.  WIth this smart bit of research, the authors conclude that the United States of America is not a democracy but is, instead, an oligarchy.  Those on both sides of the aisle will roll their eyes at this but for different reasons.  The left have known this for a very long time and the right will chalk this up to European arrogance trying to defame the pristine American way, except the study was conducted jointly by individuals at Princeton and Northwestern.

Scientific Proof Trumps All:

The study, which can be found here, will be be printed in the upcoming Fall 2014 Perspectives on Politics.  The methodology created a statistical model that measured 1,779 policy issues in order to see who actually influenced these decisions, the people or a group of elites.  The authors state that the American voter has a “minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.  So that means the powerful, wealthy, and elite are the ones pulling the strings.

The findings may not seem shocking, but the fact that an actual numerical, and efficient study found these results devoid of bias is troubling, and it doesn’t stop there.  The authors admit their scientific study was somewhat limited and believe, with a more robust model containing even more data, the results could show that the impact of the elite is much more rampant.

For those who aren’t familiar with an oligarchy…. well….. you should be since you’ve most likely been living in one for some time now.  But, an oligarchy is translated from Greek as ‘few to rule’, and is a form of governing where power rests with a few people at the top. These people are not necessarily in power due to wealth, but can obtain such a status by military might or family connections.  The term plutocracy describes an oligarchy that has the wealthy calling the shots.  America would classify as this term better, because you need money to obtain power and once you get elected, power brings you money.  It’s an almost neverending cycle that could very well bring about the downfall of America.

Reverse the Oligarchic Tide:

Classifying America as an oligarchy puts the country into a lackluster and foreboding territory.  Examples of other oligarchies are:

• The Chinese Communist Party,
• The Russian Federation,
• The ‘Party’ from Orwell’s foreboding novel 1984,
• And the sadistic government featured in the current blockbuster saga The Hunger Games.

It would seem that being a physically large and economically powerful country leads to an oligarchy.  This is more evidence for the claim published previously by Lazy Activism that big countries are doomed to fail.  Separating into smaller sovereign entities is a positive thing.  Oligarchies are often tyrannical, but be assured that America still enjoys many democratic promises such as freedom of speech and scheduled elections.  But that should not placate the public who are increasingly marginalized in American political life.

Fixing the American Oligarchical system seems daunting, but clear minded reforms can go a long way if politicians are brave enough to enact them.  One solution is to create term limits for Senators and Congressmen.  You cannot be in power for decades if the law precludes it, but can, of course, lead to a revolving door of the elite’s puppets, but it is still a step in the right direction.

As we have already highlighted in this article, campaign finance rules need to be completely reformed.  Money needs to be taken out of politics in order to limit the power of the wealthy few. Another solution is the rise of 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates.  If there are a multitude of candidates to chose from, entrenchment can be avoided.   It will surely be an arduous struggle to polish America until the democracy underneath shines through, but it should be the mission of every citizen to ensure we live up to the founder’s principles.

 

Republican Family Values

Conservatives and their political party, the Republicans, espouse an ardent family value lifestyle that influences everything they do. They believe that any policy or legislation they propose should be intertwined into family values.  For starters, claiming something so specific as family values is ridiculous due to the various types of families living in this country.  This issue came to the forefront this week when a video surfaced of Representative Vance McAllister from Louisiana kissing a woman who was not his wife.  McAllister is a Republican who is part of the family values party but went against the social platform beloved by his constituents and peers.  According to his creed, McAllister should be resigning, head in his hands, full of shame but instead is ignoring it, and has no plans to curtail his political career.

The sooner Republicans drop the holier than thou family values malarkey and start acting like everyone else – flawed and human- the better they will come across to mainstream voters.  People don’t approve of adultery, but hypocrisy is much worse.

Disingenuous Family Values:

This isn’t a call for everyone to go out and cheat on their spouse or be a ‘sinner’, but the notion of family values in politics is ridiculous.  Families are intensely personal entities that don’t necessarily have shared blood, but do have a core belief in having each others back, helping each other through problems, and to be accepting of each others mistakes. It certainly isn’t about chastising other families on how they operate because, at the end of the day, there is no prototypical “perfect” family and it’s time Republicans realize that.

“Family values” is a purposely vague term so that politicians can lump anything under its umbrella.  Just take a look at this 2004 Republican Platform report  It may be a decade old, but the point of being a conservative is that nothing changes.  Here are the core principles of family values:

• Traditional marriage

• No sex outside of marriage

• Women maintain a traditional role within the family

• No same sex marriage

• Support of complementarianism

• Anti-abortion

• Support for abstinence education

• Protecting children from exploitation

Is that what family is all about?  Instead, that seems more like a list of ways to prohibit human rights and freedoms.  You cannot have sex before marriage, women must be a stay at home mother, no marriage for gay people in love, and women do not have the right to chose what happens to their bodies.

The issue of complementarianism is something out of the Taliban’s guidebook to a healthy home environment as it is the belief that men and women are not capable of the same roles in life and marriage. Instead, their different abilities allow them to compliment each other, thus making a happy and whole family. It’s almost funny that Republicans still wonder why women support them less and less as the years go on.

Now back to Representative McAllister, who not only cheated on his wife with one of his staff members, but did so with the wife of one of his biggest donors, making it seem like that family’s money wasn’t enough.

In the face of this scandal, McAllister affirmed he will run for re-election because the people should decide if he is fit for political office.  His point is valid: kissing someone should not necessarily exclude you from executing legislation, but the representative’s hypocrisy is another matter.

Add Hypocrisy to the List:

McAllister is notorious for mentioning religion and family values in all of his campaign ads.  Another feature to McAllister’s dedication to family values is his endorsement from Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson.  If you don’t remember, Phil is a star of a popular reality show and was the guy with the long beard who made anti-gay remarks .

The Duck Dynasty guys are supposedly role models for both family values and rednecks alike and McAllister even brought Robertson to the State of the Union speech after he made his bigoted remarks. McAllister isn’t backing down on his stance, but what about the staffer who he kissed?  She was fired, of course.

There have been many stories about Republicans acting human even though they want the public to believe they walk a divine path.  There was the Larry Craig Scandal which consisted of a longtime Republican politician soliciting homosexual sex in an airport bathroom.  However, Republicans aren’t’ the only ones who get caught.

There was, of course, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer who was found with high-end prostitutes, and the notorious NY congressman Anthony Weiner who sent out nude pictures to women.  Both were effective politicians but were consumed by scandal and eventually stepped down.

In the case of Representitive Weiner, a poll found that 56% of his constitutents wanted Wiener to stay in congress.  In opposition, 33% wanted him to resign, and 12% were undecided. It would be safe to assume that a large portion of that 33% were Republicans who wanted Weiner gone no matter what.  It begs the question that formed during the Clinton Presidency: Does one’s personal life and political life have to coincide?

Relating to the population, and especially your constituents, is an important factor of running for public office, but there is a clear line between walking the walk and talking the talk.  To err is human, but a large portion of American politicians don’t acknowledge this maxim.  Having a strong family is important, but it should not be an excuse to limit the freedoms of others