Politics and Lies

In another class I'm taking this semester we're discussing World War One and its consequences which parallel those of the Iraq War in our current time. In literature from that time it was clear that authors were disturbed by both the meaningless interpretation of the war by those who were fighting in it as well as the political cynicism that resulted. In Ernest Hemingway's novel A Farewell to Arms he focuses both on the soldier's battle to survive through a war they didn't believe in and the difficulties faced by those who realized that the political system was exploiting the vulnerability and ignorance of the people. When war becomes advertised on billboards and on television it seeks to sell a lie in order to convince people that their participation is necessary and noble. When words like "sacrifice" , "glory" and "strength" are associated with a particular war joining the military and fighting for the honor of the country (or the honor of another country's people) seems like a way to actively participate in this ideology of the great American savior. But when it is revealed that the justifications and the advertisements put forth by the government are false it leads to a sense of disillusionment on behalf of both civilians and soldiers. What does it mean when we find out that our own government has manipulated us? And what does it mean when we no longer trust politics to offer us the truth?
Clearly the similarities between Iraq and WWI are numerous in this respect. We have been coerced into believing certain "facts" that turned out to be falsehoods which has consequently led to a great deal of anger and cynicism. Not only this but how could we ignore the military commercials that air on television every night encouraging people to join the Army or the Marines in order to continue fighting this war we cannot end. In addition to this, politicians, including our president, have spent what seems like a great deal of time trying to convince us firstly to go to war and secondly to remain in it until we "win". Alot of people at this point in time are fed up with what seems like endless lies and persuasion by Washington and are ready for something to change. I think that this is the reason Obama has been so successful in his campaign thus far. In a political environment like the one we live in today, where people all across the country are questioning the validity of the political system as a whole, it is refreshing to have someone who seems removed from the lies. Whether or not Obama is trustworthy has yet to be seen but he offers a distinct change from what we have seen in the last eight years, especially considering the tragedies that have resulted from the war. Much like in WWI, the Iraq War has left a generation of young people that doesn't trust the word of their government in some of the most significant issues facing the American nation. Some people may disagree but ask yourself some questions about the issues. Did you believe President Bush when he claimed WMD's five years ago? How does it feel to realize that, regardless of intention, he was dead wrong? Pick your candidate of choice, the person you are going to vote for; Do you believe everything they say or are you cynical about some of their promises? What does this say about politics and the government? Do we not want to be proud and secure in our nation ?

Halloween Fun

There has been a lot of talk about how fun this election could be were the consequences not so serious ( especially considering the current economic situation). Most recently, however, there have been some people making an effort to truly enjoy politics. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner was an opportunity to truly consider the presidential candidates in a new light. Considering the last three times we've seen the candidates converse was during three ultra-serious debates (most especially the last) it was refreshing to watch them laugh and joke like normal people. I think it's really important to be able to see the candidates in this way because I think everyone tends to loose sight of the fact that they are real people and even though they must be truly superior in some ways, their nature is just like ours. We all know that politicians are suppossed to be strong and responsible beyond that which is expected of the general citizenry. But I do think it is overlooked that on an emotional level it must be unbelievably difficult to be a politician, especially on the national stage. During the third debate, McCain made a comment that during a football game he was watching he saw an Obama advertisement condemning him. I can't imagine sitting at home watching television and then seeing my enemy or my opponent pop up to berate me. I'm sure that it is something that these men and women have gotten used to but I do not think that they are emotionally deviod enough not to feel stung due to certain advertisements.
To get back to the actual topic, in the spirit of Halloween, there have been alot of people creating pumpkins with the likeness of their favorite political figures or integrating politics into their annual decorations. There are also tons of people planning on dressing up as Obama and Palin regardless of their political affiliations. I feel like we havn't had enough fun in this election yet because of all that is riding on its outcome but I am personally very excited that these things are finally going on and giving us all a chance to enjoy election season.
For everyone's enjoyment here's the roast video and a political Halloween article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-j0W6MW-U
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/political.halloween.irpt/index.html

The Risk of Assasination

There's no easy way to talk about a political figure's possible assasination but I think this is a topic that really needs to be discussed because its implications are profound. I'm sure we are all aware that there is alot of chatter going on about the possibility that Obama, if elected, would be assasinated. I think that had this not been a serious threat before, it is now that it has been hyped up by the media and the public. There is no denying that being a black man in the most powerful position in the United States government is dangerous. Without being morbid, I personally, and many people I have spoken with, believe that there are individuals out there who would committ the crime. It doesn't mean that it will necessarily happen but it certainly is a possibility. The point at issue here however, isn't Obama or impending assasination. It is what this says about our country in general.
First off, it is Obama's race that has caused this topic to be discussed at such great length. The idea is out there that should he be killed, it would be by someone who was so inherently racist that they literally could not stand to be governed by a black man (lets not forget that there are those less extremist who would simply never vote for a black man and have outwardly admitted this). I think this clearly proves the fact that although we have come far since the fight for civil rights, we remain a country that has deep racist tendencies. And should an attempt be made on Obama's life we will be a country divided; it will become black vs. white in a matter of seconds. The fact that it is possible that we could return to the situation we faced in the 60's is indicative of the lack of change we have made. It is undeniable that Obama's nomination and his campaign are signs that we are improving but it seems as though that has overshadowed the fact that to truly be a free, democratic nation, all citizens need to be unquestionably equal. This is not so. McCain need not worry about a serious assasination attempt from pro-choice advocates (at least not as far as I know) and this is a policy position that he has chosen, not an inherent part of his identity. Obama, on the other hand, must face a greater threat because of his race. How can we ever claim true equality when this disparity exists.
This particular race issue also does not speak to the fact that the people we are talking about (those that would consider assassination) are technically fundamentalists even though they may not be tied to a specific religion. In essence, fundamentalism is the most extreme conservativism there is (and I mean that not as a political characterization but as a resistance to change) and that would be the force in action here were there to be an assassination. Alot of people would acknowledge that this threat does exist yet would make it clear that this does not provide an accurate or fair description of America as a nation. Now, if we can make this distinction within our own country, how can we not make it for the Middle East? We have equated Arabs and Muslims with terrorism perhaps irretrievably. And we make very little effort to differentiate in regards to those nations and people (as is evidenced by the lack of media coverage actual Middle Eastern people recieve and the ongoing social injustices Muslims and Arabs face in the US). Again, what does this double standard say about this country and its values?
I want to make it clear that I'm not predicting an assasination and that most of my information has come from dozens of conversations with others as well as from media. But I do think the fact that so many people are aware of this and are talking about it indicates that it is a distinct possibility. There are even Obama supporters out there who have been so moved by this threat that in a naive notion have decided not to vote for him in order to "save his life". Clearly this is not the issue I'm getting at here. What I'm trying to provoke is a discussion on whether or not this national obsession with assasination means that our country has failed in its attempts at racial equality. I think that it does. I would really appreciate any comments about this or any disagreements because I think it is one of the major issues in the political community right now. Below is a link to a site that discusses the issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513512/They-kill-Obama-US-president-Outcry-Nobel-Prize-winners-assassination-warning.html

Obama's Eloquence

Much has been made of Barack Obama's eloquence in this election and most of the conversation has centered around whether or not his speaking abilities actually point to anything substantial within him as a candidiate. Certainly, being able to speak well does not denote competance as a president. Many people that I've spoken to about Obama, even those who are planning on voting for him, have mentioned their fear that he may be all talk. He has a very useful ability to make himself and his policies sound not only appealing but unquestionable. Who wouldn't want 95% of the country to have lower taxes? Who doesn't want to improve our education system? In my opinion, he makes it oh so hard to disagree. But will these supremely eloquent speeches bring about the real change that has been promised? While I personally don't share these fears I can understand why the media's (and his opponents) portrayal of his eloquence has made some weary of his true intentions and capabilities. But the fact that McCain has expressed his own opinions about this particular issue leads me to believe that this fear my be unfounded. Because McCain is no where near Obama's level in terms of speech-making it would make perfect sense for him to discredit his opponent in terms of one of his greatest characteristics. Making Obama's eloquence is a way to distract from the fact that McCain really can't measure up in that department. Clearly, this issue has been picked up by the press and political pundits and has now manifested itself in the voters minds as a potential problem instead of a beneficial trait (which I believe it is). It's indicative of the political environment that we live in where nearly every positive aspect is turned into a detriment. Why can't we recognize talent and superiority without attacking it?

Debate #3

Throughout the 2008 campaign, I've been tentative to actually attack John McCain personally because to be honest, I've always thought he was a rather relatable candidate. Seeing him in other debates and other appearances (most notable his speech at the RNC) I had created an image of him in my head that was rather favorable considering my own intensely liberal beliefs. However, after witnessing his performance last night in the final presidential debate I was literally disgusted. His childish eye-rolling and condescending laughter was a complete turn-off as a voter, regardless of which candidate I was planning on endorsing on election day. His rude interupptions and snappy demeanor served only to make him look desperate and grumpy which is not the kind of attitude I would have expected from someone trailing in the polls. This was one of his last chances to appeal to a broad range of individuals and in my opinion he failed miserably. He may have had a few great lines, as can be expected from any candidate in a debate, but the majority of his statements just seemed angry and indignant. He was constantly on the attack and some of the things he said were just plain ridiculous. I'm not ashamed to say that his ideas about taking Iraqi veterans and placing them as teachers without having to be certified is horrendous. What a miserable idea it is to take individuals who have just been through the terror of war and throw them into a classroom without having to take the exams and the courses that other teachers are required to take. I'm sorry but this seems as though McCain is placing military service on a pedastal that it does not deserve to be on. Fighting in a war is courageous and it is respectable and admirable but it does not mean that it should exempt individuals from having to follow the same rules as everyone else. Not to mention the fact that in order to better schools and improve education we need to create even more qualified teachers than we already have. And in terms of McCain's "equal access" statement I'd like to ask him what he considers equal about the educational system right now. Clearly he is referring to the end of segregation but make no mistake, there is not equal access to education for those in lower socio-economic classes and this is through no fault of their own. They are children, period, and they deserve no more and no less than priviledged children who can attend Exeter or Deerfield. Everyone should have this superior education not just those can foot the bill.
When considering Obama's performance, however, I was not just impressed I was in awe. He exuded confidence and warmth in his unwillingness to respond to the numerous attacks thrown at him by McCain. And when he spoke he looked not only at the camera but at John McCain as well. I felt like Obama was participating in a conversation whereas you would have thought McCain was in a boxing ring. To most clearly illustrate this point, we need to look at the discussion of negative campaigning. Obama stated that politicians (especially in this election) need to stop trying to characterize each other as bad people. He was then immediatley attacked by McCain who wasted no time bringing up ACORN and Ayers. I'm not saying that these issues shouldn't have been addressed as they were serious allegations, but to spew out an attack after Obama's assertion of friendliness was pretty disgusting. Obama consistantly noted similarities between the two candidates and when he did mention differences, it was done respectfully. I want my president to be someone whose anger is directed towards the right places, someone who can function respectably in public forums. McCain's performance last night was a disaster but thank god for that because it might just have cost him the White House.
Here's a link to the debate and some commentary about priceless reactions of both candidates http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#video

What's in a name?

In another class that I'm taking we were discussing the recent McCain/Palin rally up at Stabler and one of the students mentioned that a prominent figure in the Republican party had been continually referring to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama". In our subsequent discussion we talked about what it means that this kind of a tactic is used in order to somehow discredit or damamge the opposition. This is by no means an attack on McCain or the Republican Party but I would like to explore the mentality behind this and its consequences.
Clearly referring to the middle name "Hussein" is a direct referrence to Saddam Hussein and the Middle East in general. Considering that much of the election is focused on the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it's pertinant to ask whether or not this reference is simply a misguided fear tactic or if it is indicative of an inherent ethnocentricity on behalf of both the nation and the Republican party member. It also begs the question of what is acceptable and "politically correct" in terms of political strategy. Keep in mind that the name Hussein is a mark of the Islamic religion and not necessary of Middle Eastern ethnicity. If Obama had a distinctly African middle name, or a distinctly European middle name, would it ever be used as a way to create negativity around his candidacy?I would assume not. It is not "ok" to be racist against African decendency and we would never dream of degrading a European name as we would risk degrading many of our own ancestors as Euro-Americans. But for some reason, we are permitted to use a religious name ( that calls to mind the horrors in Iraq ) in this manner.
What does this say about us a nation that we still have people who are willing to refer to a specific area of the world in order to create a feeling of fear or inadequacy? What does it mean for those Muslim Americans living in the US who have to deal everyday with the fact that their religion is used as a scapegoat in politics? In this way, the Republican member who used this tactic is (and perhaps subconsciously) creating a "unity" through exclusion and alienation of "others". These "others" do not just include terrorists, although this is clearly the implication in that it connects "Barack Hussein" with terrorism, they include Iraqi's suffering in the midst of national destruction, it includes Muslims in all over the world, and it includes Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States. And even if the intention here was not to victimize a certain group, that is the result. If you should question whether or not this is the case consider the rally that took place yesterday and ask yourself how comfortable you would have been attending that rally with a turban or a veil on. Consider the fact that there is a professor here at Lehigh who was interested in attending but revealed to his students that he did not think he would be let in. This kind of exclusion isn't abstract, it happens everyday and everywhere. I think what I'm trying to convey here is that politics can take a nasty turn sometimes and we need to ask ourselves why we allow it.