The Republicans are in Trouble for 2012

Presidential elections are getting ridiculous. The republicans started having debates in the beginning of May, a full eight months before the first primary. Since then, two of the five participants have dropped out, leaving New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who I'm willing to bet most people have never heard of, businessman Herman Cain, who's lead is almost guaranteed to be short lived, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who is more policy focused than anyone in national politics but has unfortunately been relegated to crazy old man status.

If you listen to conservative pundits, they think the republicans have the 2012 election wrapped up. They point to the president's low approval ratings and think that the country would elect anyone rather than see him in office another four years. It's true that the shine's off President Obama, as it has been with every president. If you look at the approval ratings of the past thirteen presidents, you'll see that every president except for John F. Kennedy, FDR, and Dwight D. Eisenhower have had lower approval ratings than President Obama. When you look at the average approval ratings, he falls right in the middle between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. His approval ratings really aren't so terrible in comparison to the rest, although they could be better, but the nature of the presidency is that you can't keep up the image you showed in the election. This inevitable buyer's remorse is partly due to the fact that the presidency being the weakest branch of government, which he usually doesn't have the power to do what people want, but it also stems from the need for the president to make unpopular decisions. In some cases, the president has to make decisions based on information that the general public doesn't have. Where the military is involved, most of the reports that the president is privy to is classified, so if the public doesn't like his actions, he can't defend himself. He has to let it roll off his back. Other policies, especially those involving economics and foreign policy, are so complex that many people don't have the proper education and training to understand it or they don't want to take the time to research the intricacies of that policy. Most of the time, if the president has a high approval rating, it's because of something extraordinary or catastrophic, such as catching Osama Bin Laden or being attacked on 9/11, and those numbers without fail drop very quickly. That's why they have the old saying, "Campaign in poetry; govern in prose."

And when it comes to campaigning, this president is on the same footing as Shakespeare. Whether you agree with him or not, he is one of the best speakers that we've seen in a long time, and he knows how to garner support. People may not be happy with him now, but Americans have a tendency to be very forgiving, or perhaps forgetful is a better word, in an election year.

I've been watching a lot of The West Wing lately, and at one point Rob Lowe's character says something about Major League Baseball. He says that there's 162 games in a season and that everyone's going to win 54 and everyone's going to lose 54; it's what you do with the other 54 games that makes a difference. In the presidential election, the republican candidate will get the conservative vote, and President Obama will get the liberal vote. The winner will be the one who gets the moderates. On this battlefield, the longer the republicans fight each other, the more tired the public gets of them and the better chance the president has of re-election. What's more, the republican party can't find a candidate they can get excited about, which means that certainly can't expect independents to get excited about them. In fact, the man with the most support isn't even running. The president, on the other hand, is getting ready to campaign directly to the middle. He's lowered taxes, although mostly in a symbolic way, he's drawing troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, and he's despite the ridiculous fears of the NRA, he's actually weakened gun laws. The president understands that the liberal base of his party is never going to vote for the republicans, so he's fighting his war in the middle, which is the only fight that matters.

Republicans don't seem to understand this concept, though. In 2008, McCain won the nomination despite having a voting record that didn't always match up with the party's core values. As soon as he was nominated, though, he ran to the right. He was a man of character who valued good ideas of blind party loyalty, and that character still showed late in the campaign when he defended his opponent against the more paranoid, baseless accusations from the extreme right wing. I'll always respect him for that. When he left his moderate platform behind, though, he lost the independent voters, who were afraid to see another four years like the Bush administration.

As it is, the republican's are in trouble. Independents are disgusted by the debates so far where high execution rates are cheered and active duty soldiers are jeered. If they want to win, they need to draw in the votes of the independents and moderate democrats. If they nominate a truly moderate republican put a coherent sentence together, then they have a fighting chance. They need someone with the policy savvy of Ron Paul, the good looks and vigor of Rick Perry, and the speech of Martin Luther King. Unfortunately, they don't have anyone like that in the field.

Occupy Wall Street will be the Liberal Tea Party

I haven't posted in a very long time. I believe the last time I was on, I was in the middle of listing the Republicans to watch in the upcoming presidential election. It seems a little anti-climatic to continue that series now that they've been campaigning for six months, although I am pleased to look back on that post and see that I correctly identified Mitt Romney as the only one out of those four potential candidates to actually run. Perhaps it's best that I didn't continue since I doubt my luck would have held out for two more posts, even though I honestly can't remember who else I had planned on discussing.

I'm not promising to update regularly, although I may try for once a week. I go through spurts where I'm eager to discuss politics, but then there are things like the debt ceiling crisis in this past summer and debate audiences cheering high execution records that just make me want to ignore the whole process. For the times that I feel like screaming into the night, this blog seems like a good place to get some of my ideas down for anyone who cares to read them.

I'm a bit nervous to make my first post in ten months about the economy because, as I've always said, I don't understand the economy. I'm not at all convinced that anyone does understand it, to tell you the truth. It seems to me that the stock market waxes and wanes based on how the people who work at the stock market feel. If they're nervous, then the stocks drop; if they're comfortable, then the stocks improve. Doesn't that make their fears a self-fulfilling prophesy? I've also heard people say that you can't see the effects of a president on the economy until the next president takes office, but it seems like I only hear that when it fits the speaker's personal political ideology. If the economy's strong and they voted for the current president, then they're quick to give him credit. My majors in college ranged from Biochemistry to Creative Writing, but I made it through four years without taking a single course in Economics. I don't know what to believe most of the time, so I'm usually slow to criticize anyone's economic beliefs.

The economy has been a huge topic of discussion lately, though, specifically with Occupy Wall Street, which I think is the name that they're going by. The reason I say, "I think" is because I don't actually know if there's a single group that the people camping out at Washington Square are organized under or what their demands are. The most I've been able to get out of my friends who are involved is that they want to draw attention to the situation, but is there anyone who isn't aware that the economy is bad? I think at this point, most people recognize the similarities between this movement and the beginnings of the Tea Party, which scares me a bit. They're both disorganized with no clear message except anger. It's hard enough getting conservatives to calm down and look at things reasonably; liberals don't need to compete in the screaming match. The Tea Party's strategy doesn't work; they only distract from real debate.

My problem with Occupy Wall Street is the same as my problem with the Tea Party: they have vague demands with faulty information supporting them and no plan on how to fix it. We all know that the economy's bad, but there's not as much evidence to support it being "The 1%'s" fault as they would like. People talking about the coming collapse of the economy have a long list of signs and omens of the upcoming financial apocalypse, but I don't find much of that list to have merit. One table states that 83% of the stock market is controlled by one percent of the population, which is true, but it acts as if this is a new phenomenon that is a symptom of how bad we've become. Unfortunately, their statistics are in dollar figures, not percentages, showing that the rich have gotten richer while making it difficult to tell how the rest of the nation has fared. When you convert that information to percentages, it paints a much different picture.

I apologize for the crudeness of the graphic; I'm no computer expert and just took a snapshot of the chart in Excel. You can see the difference, though. This chart shows the percentage of the nation's stock owned by each economic tier in the different years. In this view, the economic disparity has actually gotten better since the 1960's.

Some of their claims, such as 61% of the population living paycheck to paycheck and 24% postponing their retirement by a year, could easily be explained by a bad economy, but there's no evidence that the problem is the top one percent. In fact, Ezra Klein has some bad news for Occupy Wall Street: it looks like our financial destiny isn't at all linked to the richest people in America. This is also bad news for the political right, though, who are fighting against raising taxes on the top one percent because it will stop them from making jobs. If our economic plights aren't connected, then it doesn't matter what they pay in taxes. In fact, taxes, too, seem to have very little effect on the economy. Income taxes are the lowest they've been since 1930, which was the beginning of the Great Depression. The highest they've ever been was 1952, when the lowest tax bracket was paying 42% and the highest was coughing up a whopping 92%, as compared to today's ten percent and 33% respectively. By the way, in 1952 our economy was considered one of our best tools for spreading democracy.

So if our economic woes aren't connected to the bank accounts of the uber-rich and we can't blame taxes, which it turns out are comparatively low and don't really matter anyway, then how do we fix the economy? I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is that the economy goes through cycles. We're on a downturn now, but things will pick up. I certainly don't find the bosses on Wall Street to be saints; taking giant bonuses that you don't need while taking bail outs from the government and cutting jobs is just plain wrong. The government can't do anything about that, though, except in cases where they're providing bail outs, in which case they have the right to put any restrictions on the funding that they like. Sending jobs over seas doesn't help, but that was always going to be the eventual path of capitalism. Labor goes to where it's cheapest so the company can maximize profits. It's not surprising since the entire goal of companies is to make a profit, and what's best for the company isn't always what's best for the country. Capitalism is the best system that we've found so far, though. On paper, Marxism is better and, despite what the Christian Right may say, more Biblical than Capitalism, but Marxism is too easily corrupted. Capitalism would work better if everyone worked in a moral, responsible way, but it still works pretty well if corporations behave like sociopaths, which they often do. Marxism, on the other hand, collapses if people start looking out for themselves instead of everyone as a group. Capitalism is the best idea we've had so far, and if anyone wants to fix the economy before it naturally swings back in our favor, then they're probably going to have to come up with a better system. I'm open to ideas.

Who will Run in 2012? Part 1

After my last post, I started wondering who would make a good Republican nominee for president. Since the president will undoubtedly be running again for reelection, the Democratic side is relatively boring. Finding a viable Republican with a chance of beating President Obama, though, is a tall order, especially since only four presidents in the last hundred years have lost their reelection. The GOP is most likely scrambling to find warm bodies to fill the field for the primaries starting a year from now, but will they be able to find a contender? It's a daunting task to be sure, but obviously an important one. Ours is a country built on choices and a kind of permanent revolution that we call elections. This will be the first in what will most likely be a three-part series outlining possible Republican presidential hopefuls. I've already discussed Governor Bobby Jindal at length, so if you're interested in that commentary, then you can find it in my previous post. This time I'd like to focus on possible candidates who were involved in the 2008 election.

The name most associated with the Republican's 2012 ticket at this point is Sarah Palin. She is one of the few members of the party to actually admit to considering a presidential run. Generally, a politician's current electorate gets upset when told that their public servant is looking for a promotion; an announcement this early gives the appearance that they are no longer interested in doing their current job as they'll be busy campaigning for the next two years. Mrs. Palin doesn't have that problem, though, as her current job as a television personality and public speaker has no constituency. Despite her prominent position in the spotlight, the former governor of Alaska has a lot to overcome. She's been the figurehead for a couple of political movements: The Tea Party and the mama grizzlies. I've been clear on how ridiculous I find The Tea Party in the past: in short, they're an extremely disorganized movement whose only uniting factor is anger. They had a lot of success this year in the mid-term elections, but political movements that rely on emotion are fickle. You can't rely on that same passion in two years. The mama grizzly, or pink elephant, movement consisted of Mrs. Palin supporting female Republicans, which held mixed results. While many of her endorsees won their elections, the most watched campaign from that time was Christine O'Donnell's senate run in Delaware. She ultimately lost that race, and that loss was placed squarely on Mrs. Palin's shoulders by prominent Republican leaders. We as a country would be the biggest losers of a presidential election involving Mrs. Palin, though, as she has a habit of distracting from the issues or never addressing them in the first place. The mama grizzly commercial, for example, was characterized by Jon Stewart as being the kind of feel-good, non-issue ad that more closely resembles a peanut-butter commercial than something a serious politician would have a hand in. Fortunately, it's unlikely that Sarah Palin will be involved in the forth-coming election. Currently, polls show her approval rating at a pitiful 22%, and her numbers aren't much better when only conservatives are in the mix. I believe she's keeping her name in the hat to boost her television ratings and book sales, but I don't think we're quite at the point that television personalities have a realistic chance at becoming participants rather than commentators.

Many people might think that Senator John McCain may come out for a political rematch against his 2008 foe, but I seriously doubt it. Although I like the senator a lot, he has several reasons not to run again. He also has very little chance of winning. The American people are pretty consistent in turning down someone's political ambitions; no presidential candidate who has lost the run-off in November has been elected to the presidency later on, at least not in modern politics. Although the president has not lived up to the hype of the campaign, the country just doesn't have enough buyer's remorse for the senator to consider a rematch.

The two most likely return players from the 2008 field are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, to be bluntly honest, was a fairly boring candidate three years ago. He has the demeanor of the grandfatherly, country-pastor and is easily ignorable. Besides that, he's worked as a commentator and host on FOX News since losing his party's nomination, which as I said before makes his success unlikely. There is simply too much that he could have said on the air that he'll actually have to be responsible for. This would be great from a statesman point of view as it would be a fantastic medium to get your ideas out to the public. Unfortunately, the success of most political strategy today is dependent on the candidate's ability to avoid taking an actual stance on any issue. Mitt Romney has a slightly better chance, and although he hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet, he did send out a suggestive Christmas card. He's spent the last few years raising money for other Republican candidates, wisely guarding himself from overexposure in the media, admirably tending to his sick wife, and writing a book about why he thinks America's awesome. His hard work has not been for naught; a poll from last year held him even with the president, although a lot can change in a very short period of time.

Out of the previous field of candidates, Mr. Romney certainly has the best chances, but I don't believe that he'll win the party's nomination, let alone the grand prize. He was unable to beat Senator McCain in 2008, and I simply don't see him having more success in two years. Also, his Mormonism makes him an unlikely candidate since Americans, particularly Republicans, are unlikely at this point to elect a non-Christian president. I believe that the next Republican nominee will be a newcomer to the national race, although not necessarily to the national stage. Next time, I'll discuss those politicians who are already well-known by the nation but have never made a presidential run.

Bobby Jindal Will Run for President, but He Shouldn't

Governor Jindal's book, Leadership and Crisis, went on sale today. The book takes a takes a very harsh stance attacking BP, DC, the UN, and most prominently, President Obama. He does not, however, spend much time talking about Louisiana, only discussing his home state in reference to how his ideas could benefit the country. Despite his constant claims to the contrary, it seems pretty obvious that the governor is planning a presidential run, or at the very list a vice-presidential bid, in 2012.

The governor has been promoting his book across the country, starting in California, and he's spent a great deal of the past two years out of state for fundraisers and appearances in other candidates' campaigns, most notably the two earliest states in the presidential primary, Iowa and New Hampshire. In the latter state, the LSU student body president placed a letter in a local newspaper pleading for the governor to return to his state and govern. His perpetual absence isn't the only reason to believe he'll run for president, though. The governor has never been able to stay focused on one job for very long. If he finishes this term as governor, which I have no reason to believe he won't, then these past four years will make up the longest period of time he's ever held one title. He also has a history of using political office as leverage for higher ambitions. Once he lost his 2003 bid for governor, he immediately ran for congressman only to use that position to run for governor again in 2007. There's been no indication that he isn't using the governor's office to leverage himself onto the national stage, and with what looks to be an easy re-election for him next year, he and his team should be well rested and prepared for the national campaign.

If he runs for president, though, he'll lose. To put it simply, his political and campaign style is too similiar to the president's. They're both young minorities who sell themselves as men of the people who want to change government into what it should be, but President Obama's much better at it. Jindal has been following in Obama's footsteps for quite some time. He may not have been the keynote speaker for his party's national convention, but he did deliver the rebuttal to the president's first State of the Union. Unfortunately, Governor Jindal hasn't given a great speech since taking office. His inaugural address was greatly overshadowed by then Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu's speech before him, who recognized modern challenges rather than glazing over them to an idealistic dream. His response to the State of the Union was a joke. He looked like either a sick boy wearing his father's suit or a jr. high math nerd ready for his first date, and once he started speaking, he sounded more like Mr. Rogers than a formidable or even competent leader. It was a political gaff from which he didn't recover until the oil spill in the gulf two years later. His communications staff should know better than to allow him go on camera that way, and he definitely needs a new speechwriter if he wants to ever make a serious run for national office.

Governor Jindal would be smart to serve his complete second term as governor before moving on to the national stage. If he works hard over those extra four years, he could gain stronger footing and increase his chances. He'll have to make sure his gambles with higher education budget cuts and his own health care plan pay off, otherwise his comparisons to the current president will continue with pushing through unpopular programs. Also, he won't have to run against Obama, who Jindal can't beat. As he stands now, Governor Jindal might make an attractive vice-presidential candidate, but he'll never win the oval office in 2012. And once you've been rejected by the American people, they don't often give second chances.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

An article was printed in the Baton Rouge Advocate this week reporting that text books in Louisiana are under attack for too greatly favoring evolution. The criticism, which is probably lead by the Louisiana Family Forum, claims that Darwin's theory is just that, a theory, and shouldn't be held higher than any other theory about the origin of the world. The Louisiana Coalition for Science seems to be leading the opposition against intelligent design.

I generally find groups with Family in their name to be annoying, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. I've never understood why religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution has no explanation for how the universe was created, only modern life, and the explanation that I've always heard, that life was sparked from a lightning strike, seems a little far fetched. The big bang theory offers an explanation for how the universe was created, but how did the hot, dense mass get there in the first place? Also, I have an easier time believing in a supreme, supernatural being than in the idea that an infinite number of complex planets and solar systems were created basically by chance. Whether you trust the Bible or not, whatever origin theory you choose to believe in requires a great deal of faith.

Christians have been studying science for all of recorded history. Copernicus referred to God in his work, and Sir Isaac Newton did a great deal of work on Biblical numerology. Galileo fought with the church about interpretations of the Bible, not its validity. Albert Einstein has many quotes that show he didn't believe in a personal god, but he was also annoyed when people used his work in effort to prove that no deity exists. He said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” While he didn't believe in God himself, he didn't see any scientific reason that that God couldn't exist. Stephen Hawking recently made news by saying in his new book, in a way that I admittedly don't fully understand, that the universe doesn't need God to exist; however, he also says that it doesn't prove there is no God, only that God isn't necessary.

If our greatest scientists don't find God to be contradictory with science, then why should our school system perpetuate that myth? Teaching intelligent design doesn't mean you have to teach literal Biblical creationism. Intelligent design means that there could be something else out there that we don't know about; it simply allows for unknown variables, which is something every scientist should be in the habit of doing. It doesn't necessarily clash with the theories of evolution or the big bang as the creator in question could have used them as tools.

Deciding we're absolutely right is dangerous because we're almost always wrong. We should constantly be questioning even our dearest beliefs because the close-minded, whether they hide behind religion or science, are doomed to be left behind.

The Majority of Americans Shouldn't Vote Today

I haven't updated much lately, and to be honest, things don't look good for the rest of November either. I've held two major jobs so far in my life, one in politics and one in teaching, but my main career goal has always been to become a writer. My degree is in Creative Writing, and I've worked intermittently on novels for several years now. November, though, is National Novel Writing Month in which people all over the country, and possible the world, strive to write 50,000 words in one month. I made an attempt last year, but work got in the way. This year, I'm making a stronger effort in hopes that the deadline is just the catalyst I need to finish my first rough draft of a novel.

Today is election day, however; and I wanted to take a little bit of time to talk about our civic duty in voting. This isn't a post about how everyone should go and vote; it's quite the opposite. I'm of the belief that many Americans shouldn't go vote today because they simply don't know what's going on. Three years ago, The Pew Research Center released a survey reporting that 76 % of the country could identify the party in control of the House of Representatives, only 69% of the country could identify the vice-president, and a measly 66% knew who their governor was. Interestingly, it also showed that Jon Stewart's audience had the highest percentage of highly informed citizens than any other news source, but whether that's a sad commentary on our news sources today or an indicator that highly intelligent people enjoy satiric comedy, I don't know.

With this information, I can assume that at best three-fourths of the country actually keeps up with what's going on in their government, but in reality, chances are that at least another fourth of America know just the bare amount of information, particularly since only 49% could identify Nancy Pelosi. I think we all know that saying half of the country is well-informed is pretty generous, but the lower we go, the more depressing it gets.

So let's assume that everyone in the country votes today and that only half of those voters actually knows what they're talking about; the other half is going completely off of what's being said in campaign commercials that they saw during The Biggest Loser. There's a major problem here because Politifact reported last Wednesday that the claims made in the 2010 election are barely true, meaning that half of our theoretical voters, but probably a larger majority than that in reality, are working off of incredibly bad information.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that politicians lie, especially during an election year. I wish it weren't so, but the way things should be and the way they are are rarely the same thing. With so many uninformed people voting, it's no wonder we end up with such low quality politicians in Washington and every state capitol.

I absolutely think that everyone should vote, but I believe even stronger that everyone should do their research before going to the polls. Find out what the candidates think, but don't just look at their websites. Look at their voting records if they've held office before; often it won't match up with what they're saying. You can usually find a sample ballot on your local newspaper's website or the website of whomever your voting commissioner is. Research everything on the ballot. In Louisiana, we have ten amendments to our constitution this year, but we're kind of crazy like that. Our constitution was rewritten only 36 years ago, and we already have over 150 amendments. In comparison, the US Constitution was written over two hundred years ago and has only 27 amendments. Just make sure you know what you're doing before you put someone else in power over you.

Legalize Marijuana or Outlaw Alcohol

In a couple of weeks, California will vote on Proposition 19, the latest attempt to legalize marijuana. This new law will effectively treat marijuana the same way as alcohol: it will still be illegal if you're under 21, you can only use it in a private setting or a licensed establishment, businesses can still regulate their employees as it affects their job performance, and it's still illegal to operate a vehicle or heavy machinery under the influence. Proponents say the new bill will create new jobs, generate over a billion dollars per year in tax revenue, and even reduce violence in both California and Mexico, while opponents, which ironically includes the California Cannabis Association, claim it will result in the loss of federal funding for schools, increase dangerous abuse, and lead to unintended repercussions for current medical marijuana users. California's Legislative Analyst's Office admits that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the fiscal effects of legalizing marijuana but still predicts an annual savings of tens of millions of dollars due to no longer having to imprison and supervise former offenders. I believe that either this bill should pass or that alcohol and cigarettes should be outlawed as well since the effects of marijuana are comparable to both legal substances.

Both alcohol and tobacco have been proven to have drastically negative health effects over long periods of time including liver failure and small cell lung cancer, but there has been no connection between marijuana and life-threatening illnesses. Admittedly, there have been no test subjects followed to the end of their lives, but marijuana is by all accounts healthier than the alternatives. The immediate dangers of smoking cannabis is comparable to alcohol, so treating it legally as alcohol should be sufficient.

Often, marijuana is referred to as a gateway drug, which makes sense when you see statistics stating that most users of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin used marijuana first. This argument is called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, meaning before it therefore because of it, but it's almost never true. As of last year, nearly 17 million Americans were using marijuana, but only 1.6 million were using cocaine. The kind of people who use stronger drugs are more likely to smoke cannabis, and the kind of people who abstain from all drugs, including alcohol and nicotine, are less likely. That's not a commentary on the drugs themselves but on the people who use them. There are still 15 million Americans who smoke marijuana and never try another drug.

California seems to be alone in their progressive stance, though. According to a poll from April of this year, the left coast state is absolutely in support of this measure, although that support has become shakier as November 2nd approaches; but a CNBC poll taken at the same time found that the majority of the nation is against the legalization of marijuana. Also, even if Proposition 19 passes, the use of marijuana is still illegal under federal law, although under the Tenth Amendment, every state has the right to ignore federal laws that don't directly fall under the jurisdiction of Washington DC as defined by the Constitution, which I think would apply in this scenario. The bill does make it illegal to transport marijuana across state lines, so there's no reason that other states should have trouble prosecuting their own citizens for possession as they always have before. There shouldn't be any effects for other states.

There are certainly negative consequences to smoking marijuana, but no worse than smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. Prop 19 also isn't a perfect bill. It doesn't define "under the influence," which makes it difficult to prosecute, and if it's passed by the voters instead of the legislature, then any unforeseen negative consequences will be difficult to rectify. Whether or not the bill passes is up to the citizens of California, but I'm of the opinion that if we're going to allow alcohol and tobacco in in our country, then we should allow marijuana as well. While I certainly don't promote the abuse of any substance, the laws as we have them now are inconsistent.