2014 Midterm Elections

Today is Election Day in America and if you ingest any form of media you know it’s the only thing anyone cares about….except that is not true at all.  About 75% of American citizens are registered to vote and in 2012 only 59% of those people filled out a ballot.  As seen below, the turnout for elections like today’s midterms are even more pitiful looking.

In fact, midterm voting turnout has dropped steadily since the 1840’s – the problem isn’t new but it’s more pressing than ever.  No matter how you want this election to turn out (basically who you want to be in charge of making sure nothing happens), the fact so few people turn out to vote should be troubling to citizens of a democracy because a democracy is only as strong as the amount of people who vote and help steer decisions.  Interestingly, the American government is very hands off when it comes to getting people to vote.  Perhaps it’s due to government skepticism but when compared to other countries America should be doing more.

How the World Votes:

In Sweden more than 95% of their population votes.  This is achieved through automatic enrollment for all citizens in a national database (somewhere someone in a bunker shouted, ‘I knew it!!”) which is linked to tax records.  When it’s time for elections, Swedes can easily pop in and out of their local polling stations.

Going a step further is Australia which made voting mandatory.  There’s even a $20 fine for those who didn’t vote. America would never be able to pull off anything that strict but the current hands off approach is simply not working.

There are those that say voting doesn’t matter, one vote won’t make a difference, and nothing’s going to change anyways.  This apathy with the system may have some value, but this self defeating mentality is cancerous to the preservation and growth of the nation.

A million reasons can be given as to why a particular person doesn’t vote.  They are too busy, don’t care, or can’t find time around their jobs.  This can easily be solved.  Make Election Day a federal holiday.

You can picture it now – a day of patriotic fervor that extols the message that America truly is the world’s greatest democracy.  Having an entire day devoted to voting will give the message to those disillusioned with the process that the government and the people it represents take this system very seriously.  If you need to bribe them a bit with the chance to sleep in, is that a bad thing?

Every single citizen should be proud to vote.  America is so proud of being proud of itself that this holiday should easily become a reality.  During the 109th Congress John Kerry and Hillary Clinton introduced legislation to this end but it did not pass.  How un-American.

Fine.  In this business obsessed society we live in, the ability to have one extra day off every two years might be asking a bit much. Alternatively, America could do what over 50 other nations do: hold elections on the weekend.  Ever wonder why America votes on Tuesdays?  Travel back to 1845 for the answer.  The preferred day, Monday, was not viable since travel by horse took so long you could not make the trip to vote in the same day – of course there was no traveling on the Sabbath.  So Tuesday became the day.

This antiquated reason for Tuesday voting should be a sign that the process needs to evolve.  Holding elections on a holiday or the weekend would increase turnout.  Or a truly novel idea comes from a recent New York Times opinion piece by David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan which calls for a constitutional amendment to increase House terms to 4 years thus eliminating midterm elections.  This idea is compelling but unlikely to occur anytime soon.  Maybe someday sooner America will adopt online voting – you wouldn’t even have to leave bed to elect the people that run the world.  Now that sounds like a good deal.

The Risk of Saving Americans

These days, and perhaps it has always been this way, President Obama can do nothing to impress the ravenous denizens of Washington, aside from resigning. The latest issue plaguing the president is the rescue of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl was held prisoner by the Taliban in Afghanistan for five years, but through talks and a swap of prisoners, he was released back to his country. There are many questions left unanswered about this entire ordeal, but the main complaint is that President Obama negotiated with terrorists, which is a maxim that has become indoctrinated into the American psyche. As will be shown, this blanket statement is untrue, unwise, and unhelpful.

The return of a missing in action U.S. service member is normally a cause for celebration, but that celebration was short lived and Bergdahl has not become an American darling. According to notes sent home to his family, the young sergeant had become disillusioned with the war and questioned America’s involvement in it. What happened next is still undetermined, yet Bergdahl left his post, either on accident or on purpose. While this is a military crime, thinking he did not deserve rescuing for such a notion, goes against every utterance of “leave no man behind’. There is the fact that soldiers died looking for Bergdahl which is heartbreaking, but did he deserve to be left with his captors for such reasons?

Obama’s Balancing Act:

President Obama is consistently called weak by his opponents, yet when he makes a strong move to save an American citizen, he oversteps his boundaries. Obama doesn’t even live on a razor’s edge between right and wrong, because that would imply there is actually a middle ground, free from criticism. Bergdahl was also criticized for his negative views on America and the ‘War on Terror’. The fact that someone in a war, began to hate said war, is as common as soldier’s being afraid of dying. Bergdahl is protected by the sanctity of the first amendment, but because of what he said, he is somehow seen as a “bad” American.

The legal ramifications of Obama’s actions have been received as more troubling than his moral ones, however. Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban members who had been in Guantanamo Bay prison since 2001. This move is being heralded as irresponsible, since the terrorists were reintroduced to the wild and, of course, their next step is to bring revenge against Americans. While this may or may not be true, let’s make an educated bet that America can stop this threat. Regarding all the bravado that is American exceptionalism, politicians act scared whenever there is talk about enemies testing our defenses. America’s military, defense, domestic and international surveillance budgets are astronomically high, so let’s hope they are good enough to stop five washed up terrorists.

There is also the fact that Congress must be told about the removal of Guantanamo prisoners 30 days in advance. The White House apologized for going it alone, a bad precedent to set, but one that meant something will actually get done, since Congress would have shut it down immediately. That is, after all, the only thing they are good at these days. The major foil here is the almighty “the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist” clause. At face value this seems like an easy mandate to follow, but why has this become the norm?

To Deal with Terrorist or Not To Deal with Terrorists:

The historical record shows that the American government has dealt with terrorists in the past to ensure the end of the Iranian hostage crisis as well as many other situations similar to the Bergdahl case. This clause is supposed to show how America is too strong and clear of concious to deal with such dirty enterprises, but this is an unhelpful sentiment. A good foreign policy means that all options are open because American safety is paramount. Time will tell if the President’s decision will cause any more danger, but the immediate results have made one American safer.

Another facet of this issue is the dulling of the warhawk’s notions that every enemy is completely evil. The Taliban are terrible, and have committed atrocities, but this small sign of decency adds a dash of humanity to their image and, for most Americans, it is a lot easier to fight monsters. The Taliban should not be off the hook for all they’ve done, though perhaps this swap has credited the smallest bit of goodwill that could blossom in the future.

It’s hard to call this a shrewd political move because of all the fallout, except President Obama did accomplish some political goals with the swap. The issue of the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a sore reminder of failed initiatives that candidate Obama endorsed. Yet, Obama has lessened the amount of prisoners currently being held indefinitely, while saving an American soldier. If more deals like this could be made to end the human rights violation that is Gitmo Prison, while saving Americans abroad, the decision should be repeated. But in such a toxic political climate, this was probably the first and last time.

Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers call him a deserter and want him court martialed. Politicians on both sides of the aisle criticized the President’s decision to protect his citizens. Yet, an American’s life was saved. It’s sad that a scared young man, who has been through unspeakable hells, might have been better off in the clutches of terrorists instead of back in his country.

Reign in Student Loan Debt

Lazy Activism has already covered the epidemic of student loan debt in America, and now a fresh piece of legislation hopes to bring some of that $1,200,000,000 in debt to heel. The Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren, has proposed The Bank On Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the entire wording of which can be found here.

Education Without Penalty:

With student loan debt making up one of the largest portions of personal debt in America, it is abundantly clear that something needs to be done to fix this problem. Many students, fresh out of high school, sign their lives away to loans they barely understand. This action ensures them an education, as well as debt for years to come.

Getting an education should not have a harsh penalty of high loans with immense interest rates attached to it. The high cost of colleges is another matter entirely, but Senator Warren’s latest effort goes after the rates at which these loans are signed. Warren is not alone, since 23 other senators have also signed on. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 24% of the United States Senate approving such actions. It really is a simple bipartisan issue, but of course, in this current politically toxic environment, nothing is ever truly as easy as it seems.

Lowering Past Debt:

According to the Project on Student Debt, 71% of ambitious people who graduated college in 2013 have student debt. The problem is real, large, and fixable. In an initial bipartisan effort, Congress lowered interest rates for new borrowers. A great first step, but what about all of the old debt out there?

That’s where Warren’s new plan kicks in. Her new bill would allow everyone with student loan debt to refinance to the lower prices used for last year’s congressional endeavor, and the Buffett Rule would provide the funds needed to accomplish this goal. The Buffett Rule, named for the famed, responsible billionaire, Warren Buffett, states that no household making over $1 million dollars a year should pay a smaller share in taxes than a middle class family pays and is a testament to a progressive tax system. The difference in interest rates will be made up by using the money earned from providing a fair tax code.

While tax increases for the rich are anathema in an America where income equality is reaching upward into historic levels, they are necessary to help the future of this country start their professional lives on the right foot. By refinancing their loans, students will save money that will be invested back into the economy, and not just into the pockets of those already making fortunes off of loans.

When the tax increase portion of the bill was announced, bipartisan support vanished as fast as expected but there’s a second issue that Republicans will scoff at.

The government saying you can refinance government loans is within their purview, but when the government says you can refinance loans held by private insurers is where things get messy. Government intervention into business is nothing new but still remains controversial, and even combative to a segment of the population. Yet, government action is needed to protect consumers from exorbitant loans and rates. For many Americans, a strong notion is instilled within them that, if they do not go to college after high school, they will make less money and have a worse life. So if a student was faced with the decision to either go to college with the help of a predatory loan or skip higher education, how can one blame the student for wanting to get an education?

No one should greatly profit off of an education other than the person being educated. High interest rates and high amounts of debt don’t just affect those fresh off campus, they are a burden on the economy because it bars recently graduated students from buying new cars, houses, or investing their wages. If all it takes to invest in America’s students, who are the future, is a bit of refinancing, and a modest increase in taxes by those who do not have to worry about paying for an education, how can the country morally say “no”? The final details of Senator Warren’s bill will be haggled over, but the core issue seems so simple, you wouldn’t even need a college education to agree with it.

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.

Sarah Palin: Inciter of Violence

Palin went into the George W. Bush neocon playbook and brought back the idea of waterboarding, an advanced torture method that has been condemned domestically, as well as internationally, for its severity. In regards to Islamist terrorists, Palin quaintly stated:

“Darn right I’d do whatever it takes to foil their murderous jihadist plots – including waterboarding.”

Palin went further with torture talk by stating:

“Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

This twisted bit of religious reference offends Christians, Muslims, and lovers of human decency the world over.  It takes bravery to stick up for something that is abhorred throughout the globe, but Palin is that kind of politician. Protecting America from enemies is an important priority, but breaking internationally agreed upon laws to do so is a step backwards.  President Bush already made that mistake and Palin going back to continue his work is an insulting and dangerous gesture. With her waterboarding statements, Palin fans the flames of tension between jihadists and America.  People with the perverted Islamic notions do not need any more incitement to strike back against the U.S.A.

What does her statement sound like to someone who had a family member or friend that was waterboarded? What Palin said could bring forth actions that would otherwise lay dormant.  It is adding insult to injury to the Muslim world because torture techniques yielded few if any results and only helped to solidify future enemies. What if a terrorist said the 9/11 attacks were a great success, and another would teach America a lesson?  This country, with Sarah Palin leading the charge, would be going berserk.  Yet, when Palin says a similar thing about the other side, it elicits cheers.  Makes you wonder who wants continued animosity.

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.

Ensuring a Neutral Internet

Image from DailyTech

The internet, the way you access this website, and every other website in existence, is at risk of becoming stratified and a new internet class struggle is about to unfold. Throughout the entire history of the internet, every website was considered an equal. This small blog got the same amount of bandwidth support from internet providers as giant websites like Amazon, but last week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced new legislation was in order that would allow companies to pay internet providers fees to obtain ‘faster’ service. This should come as no surprise since, in America, if you have money, you have power.

Such small entities, like Lazy Activism, who cannot afford the pay to play system would receive worse service. Money shouldn’t decide who’s worth more, deeds and services should. This only allows giant companies to extend their reach and inch ever closer to monopoly status. This is not the fair, everyone-has-a-chance-to-prosper, free market that is defied by some.

There are those that are fighting back to ensure that Net Neutrality remains the standard. Lazy Activism urges you to sign this petition that will be presented to the head of the FCC. There are further steps to increase engagement on the petitions website, but consider reaching out to your elected officials and demand they do anything in their power to keep the internet fair for everyone. This is not a partisan issue, it is an issue that affects everyone who uses the internet on a daily basis. It especially hurts smaller businesses who cannot afford to monetarily grapple with large corporations.

Do not forget that net neutrality was a campaign promise by President Obama in 2008 and 2012. It would be a great shame if the President backed down from a principle that was promised twice, just because of Big Money lobbying efforts.

HELP SAVE THE INTERNET

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.