The Independent Voter

It appears to many disgusted Americans that this political year has proven to illustrate just how polarized the nation's two leading political parties have become. The democratic and republican parties have uncompromisingly sought to define their respective camps as essentially being the antonym of the other. Each has made it their highest priority to place as much space as possible between itself and the opposing party for the purpose of providing voters with clearly labeled leadership options. They would probably prefer that those two options be labeled something like good and evil, though each would undoubtedly differ in their opinion of which is which. Somehow in their efforts to delineate their differences, the democratic and republican parties may have created too great of a chasm between themselves—a chasm that more and more American voters seem to be falling into.

Surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the growing new mainstream in American voters is now, by the numbers, the independent voter. According to an column by John P. Avlon titled "What Independent Voters Want," independents make up about 40% of the electorate in the United States and represent a political majority in six states already. These new numbers represent a resoundingly large and influential group of voters that just can't seem to find a home in either end of the American political spectrum. These voters may be able to accept viewpoints on specific issues from each party, but are unable to find enough common ground allowing them to identify with that party. These branded independent voters find themselves stuck in the middle of two American extremes.

I feel that it is this new emerging conglomerate that will become the essential deciding factor in the upcoming November elections. It has already been reported that a decisive number of these independent voters occupy several swing states including Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. I agree strongly with Avlon in his conclusion that "The next president can unite the country even in difficult times if he understands this truth: Americans are not deeply divided—our political parties are—and the independent voter is a direct reaction to this disconnect." Indeed it is the overly polarized parties that are giving a national allusion of disunity and unrest. It is my feeling that the growing independent constituency is largely unimpressed with the edgy and quarrelsome partisan politics that have grown out of the past few presidential election campaigns. Americans are united—under the assertion that political parties need reform.

This weeks article can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445963016248615.html

The Way of all Empires

As most historians would agree, the story of humanity can in many instances be described as the Greeks thought of it; cyclical and repetitive. Of course many can hearken back to the cliche old phrase, "History repeats itself," perhaps recalling a history teacher or other mentor who may have used it. Indeed this phrase undoubtedly holds historical weight. One need not search very far in the history of any group of people before discovering clearly repetitive trends and tendencies. The Middle East is no exception to this concept. To the contrary, it may in fact act as an indefinite witness to it.

In reading among this week's most discussed foreign newspaper columns, I discovered a rather intriguing and somewhat daunting piece by the columnist Anwar Kemal of the Arab News. The title, "How to Fix the U.S. Financial Crisis," at first gave the impression of a small pleasant suggestion. As I read, I found it to be slightly more weighty than a mere suggestion. The article immediately began by referring to the concept of a cyclical history, bluntly stating that "The U.S. is going the way of all empires." Kemal continued by describing his suppositions that the United States has financially over-extended itself, to the point of endangering it's leadership role on the world stage. Drawing from the historical well, he cited two former empires of the recent past, as examples for his conjecture that economic meltdown brings political meltdown. The 20th century empires of Britain and the Soviet Union both illustrated Kemal's belief that economic overreaching, particularly due to extraneous war efforts, can easily hurt the international stability and political standing of even the most influential nations.

In light of recent years, I would be inclined to agree with Kemal on many points. Undoubtedly, the United States, at least at the moment, seems to be fitting the mold for the average declining empire. It fits nearly the entire historical description: economic instability, costly, controversial, and largely unproductive wars, crumbling ethical foundation, and growing international unpopularity. However, Americans should not abandon hope in their nation so soon. Even Kemal noted in his largely critical column that "There's still time for the USA to salvage some of its international standing and influence." Yet, the nation needs to see change before this can happen. It will have to soon extricate its self from those money spending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and return to a less aggressive and more conservative national budget. It is my personal opinion that the United States is in need of some serious self evaluation. A reversion needs to be made back to the traditional American identity. This identity is rooted in the tried and true values of financial discipline, investment in knowledge, and hard work. It is my sincere hope that our next president, whomever he may be, will make it a national priority to bring the United States back to that humbling position of cold hard re-evaluation.

This Week's Article taken from: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=115150&d=6&m=10&y=2008

Is the Presidential Race Really Worth all this Attention?

After yet another week of presidential combat and the dramatic closure of debate number two, it seems that the media, and consequently the American public are finally beginning to draw conclusions as to winners and losers. Headlines all over the country proclaim that Obama is pulling ahead in the race. Yes, in reality this new development is only a small one, and the changes in public opinion are minimal, just a few percentage points. The massive amount of attention that the presidential race receives from both the media and the public is simply unprecedented by any other political event or occurrance. In reality, the office of the president is only one piece of the greater governmental system framed by the U.S. Constitution. It is just one branch on the massive tree that is American government. In light of these facts, is it really so crucial that the citizens of America place this race under such uncalled for magnification? Is it truly necessary that we pay attention to every percentage point change from the latest straw poll?

I discovered this week a transcript taken from a recent broadcast of the popular television show, 'Hannity and Colmes,' which sought to discuss this very issue. This past year, a brand new book, titled "The Failure Factory" has been published with the purpose of realistically questioning the function of the office of the president of the United States in current times. The author Bill Gertz makes it the goal of his book to illustrate how "unelected bureaucrats are the true power players in Washington." Providing much historical evidence as well as current examples, Gertz ventures to expose the evolution of the presidential office to a state of unprecedented corruption. He feels that the president has become nothing more than a complacent figurehead who is completely subject to the wills of the bureaucrats. It is a point that I indeed can see as holding weight, especially in light of the seemingly petty banter that occupies a large percentage of the public conversation about this current race.

This week's document discovered at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436842,00.html

Hope

A hair-splitting presidential election, a continuously spiraling economy, and endless international struggles--yes there are moments when one might indefinitely have a cause to leave the newspaper or magazine with at least a slight case of "the political blues." Indeed, a deeply contagious pessimism has saturated recent public opinions. Polls continue to illustrate the continuing decline in political confidence among the general public, both inside and outside of America.

As the nation nears the end of another presidential administration, many citizens are finding themselves scratching their heads, wondering what our dear president did with the past four years. Some (even a majority of) citizens are apparently convinced that the past eight years have been nothing short of political chaos and disaster. Everything from Bush's financial plan, to the war in Iraq seem to be under the most distrusting scrutiny by Americans at the present.

I must admit that I have in some ways become unwillingly absorbed with this extremely pessimistic political worldview. I didn't realize just how absorbed I had become until I disbelievingly came upon a New York Times headline titled "Iraq's Shocking New Calm," by the Time's Correspondent, Dexter Filkins. Accompanying the headline was the true attention catcher: a stunning little photograph of a jovial Iraqi family, full of smiles sitting around a glowing birthday cake. This scene was one that I never expected to associate with the deemed perilous and chaotic country that seems to exist within most forms of daily media.

The topic of this article is one that many would have deemed simply "too good to be true." In it, Filkins discusses the seemingly impossible changes that have occurred in the city of Baghdad since his previous visit to Iraq two years ago. He notes observing women in jeans--walking alone, newly opened stores and businesses, blossoming commerce, and a renewed and less restrained Iraqi culture. In Filkins own words, "It was an astonishing, beautiful scene--impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago." He also admits in the article that two years ago he was sure that "Evil had triumphed, and that it would be many years before it might be stopped." Yes, he too had been enveloped by this feeling of hopelessness for the nation of Iraq.

In his article, the author makes very real and honest observances that just happen to communicate hope for a war-torn nation. He sheds light on a fact that has become taboo among Americans: Iraq is indeed rebuilding and improving. The article notes that while American forces are still an important presence in Iraq, they are an ever diminishing one. The power to keep peace is currently in the process of being ceded from Americans to the hands of the Iraqis through an initiative that has become known as "The Sunni Awakening." By this new movement, the American forces are winning over previous freedom fighters, motivating them to lay down their weapons and join the peace keeping effort. This Awakening has been nothing short of a success, as many previously violent Sunni tribes have changed their focus from the promotion of aggressive rebellion, to the securing of national security. The resulting national security has resulted in an unanticipated blossoming of a peaceful and thriving Iraqi society, in which people can truly live again.

I am deeply inspired by this article. It has shown a glimmer of hope for the Iraqi future, and inadvertently for the future of the United States. Yes, as Filkins notes, the risks have not disappeared and the improvements made are fragile ones that should be guarded and maintained at all costs. It is a single flame in the cave that we cannot afford to let die out.

Mixing Preaching with Politics

As I was reading my weekly copy of "The Week Magazine," I happened upon an article that has once again touched upon the ancient, never ending argument over the "Separation of Church and State." Understandably, this conflict is not a new one. The question of the right of the state's power over the church certainly has been long debated in ancient times, through Roman history, during the Medieval period and beyond. The political theorist and philosopher, John Locke was one of the first to suggest the modern view point that is generally accepted among Americans today. His principle of the "social contract" helped to frame the basic belief that the state should have no right to make personal religious decisions on behalf of it's citizens.

It would seem that originally, the chief concern of the early philosopher and even the early American, in regards to the separation of church and state, was to limit the power of the state from presiding over religion. Over the years this concern has progressively grown and evolved, as this week's article appears to show. Concern has come to exist not only for the state's influence over religion, but also for religion's influence over the state.

I have often heard the old phrase told, "Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." It would seem that a group of itchy preachers just had to do that. They had to push the non-profit envelope in making the daring and unorthodox decision to explicitly endorse a particular political candidate from ther pulpit. Quoting the article from The Week titled "Preaching and Presidential Policies," we find the debate rousing news that:

"A group of 33 ministers in 22 states agreed to endorse a presidential candidate from their Sunday pulpits, said the Las Vegas Sun in an editorial, to challenge a 1954 law that says nonprofits, including churches, lose their federal tax exemptions if they back candidates."

The article goes on to describe how the ministers and their supporters are hoping to gain momentum from their dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," perhaps enough to overturn the decades old law on the argument that it an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech. They claim that because pastors are already able to make their political affiliations clearly known without mentioning names, they should be further permitted to make official endorsements.

A scenario like this gives me some cause for worry. Perhaps the first amendment rights of these ministers are being limited by this 1954 law which prohibits the announcement of official political endorsements by non-profit churches. Yes, I would in fact grant that these church leaders are losing some personal freedom in choosing to label their organization as a non profit, even if that freedom may be nothing more than a trifle. However, this is a choice that they have consciously made. It is an explicit agreement if you will. Based on common American principle, there are few instances when an explicit agreement should ever be broken.

Excluding the fact that the churches have agreed to withhold from official endorsements, there is certainly another fact to be considered here. While the possibility stands that the courts may rule in favor of the churches and their right to free speech, a distinct alternate possibility remains. Realistically, the courts could find that the church has indeed over-stepped it's political bounds in this instance and could easily rule their actions to be unjustified and illegal. Let us be reminded that a fairly large representation of Americans is of the opinion that the church should not be involved in politics at all. Drastic actions like this one on behalf of these 33 ministers could potentially ignite a completely contrary governmental and public reaction that was never anticipated.

Throughout the past 50 years the state has been involving itself in a slow but steady process of removing the voice of religion from government and politics. From restricted prayer in school, to the removal of religious icons from public places, the church is indeed being limited in America with each passing year. Even today individuals are challenging the rights of the church to uphold allegedly "offensive" moral standards that have been considered unspoken ethical law for centuries. Undoubtedly the state has been following a definite trend of religious suppression in recent decades that shows no sign of stopping. It is this trend that leads me to question if this recent move on behalf of the church was a wise one. In raising the question, the Church may very well be only speeding their own furthered political limitation.

Is it really worth the risk to fight for the simple right to mention the name of a political candidate from the pulpit? Come on Church, let's think about this now...

This Week's Article Gleaned From: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89295/3/3/Preaching_and_presidential_politics

Financail Crisis Brings Political Benefits?

Let's play a guessing game...I describe an extremely influential national concern, and you guess which one it could possibly be. Here are the clues:

Clue 1. It is probably the most observed national problem in the nation.
Clue 2. It's outcome will affect everyone.
Clue 3. It influences politics on every level.
Clue 4. It was referenced to in the last blog post (green).

The individual who has not been able to guess it by now may need to venture out from under a certain rock. Yes, it should be obvious that I am referring to our national economic status, which seems to be on a continuing steady spiral. Of course, politicians have taken specific observance of this issue, knowing it's vital importance to each and every voter, and it's effect on how they cast their vote. Although it pervades every level of political contest, I will, for now, just focus on the primary election that seems to be on everyone's mind: the presidential election.

I have just recently read an article from The Week, unsurprisingly titled "Does the economy help Obama?" In this article, the author considers the question of whether or not the declining economy will or will not follow the American tradition of driving voters toward the democratic candidate. American history has certainly illustrated a noticeable trend in which times of economic crisis have caused Americans to give up on the more fiscally conservative republican, and opt to follow a more aggressive agenda. The prime example of this can be seen during the years of the Great Depression, during which the despised Herbert Hoover was completely abandoned for the promising Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Th article offers two separate opinions: the first is that of the supposed "experts." They claim that the rule firmly stands for this election, just as it has in the past; no changes. The second opinion is that of recent polls which suggest that this election may in fact be a trend breaker. Why? Well, Obama's high tax plan is the greatest potential deterrent to worried entrepreneurs.

I happen to be a firm believer in the phrase, "history repeats itself." It is my contention that as long as a culture does not drastically change, the decisions of that culture (in regards to politics) will generally remain the same as well. However, I certainly do not deny the fact that our modern American culture has indeed changed, even within the past few decades. The seemingly age-old American concepts of personal fiscal responsibility, stewardship, and contentment have given way to an age of a desire for bigger and better, flippant spending, and the assumption of truly unrealistic loans. The skyrocketing national debt bears witness to this very unhealthy national "mega-consumer" economy.

Has our culture changed enough to alter deeply entrenched political trends? Only time will tell. What we do know is that our nation needs strong economic leadership that can work toward resolving the national slip-ups of past decades. May the best man truly win!

Article Address: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89095/3/3/Does_the_economy_help_Obama

To Drill or not to Drill

Gas prices continue to rise. Consumers continue to complain. Daily, pressure from all sides mounts in Washington DC, forcing politicians to do something about it. Yet, as the political and economical stakes are steadily rising up, the congressional season is indefinitely winding down. Now with only weeks left before November's climactic elections, Congress has little time to remain productive, before new representatives will soon (once again) alter the political balance indefinitely. Washington has many decisions to make and little time in which to make them.

In the issue of offshore drilling, the lines have been clearly drawn. For Republicans, the majorital consensus is essentially "drill, baby, drill!" Many agree that our nation is faced with a very obvious problem that demands an equally obvious answer. After all, why would you even bother acquiring the black gold from your untrusted enemies, when you have it yourself?

Of course there still is, and ever shall be a staunch and very vocal group of Democrats who continue to hold against offshore drilling. They make many convincing and relevant arguments: harm to the environment, increased national addiction to oil and decreased interest in alternative energy sources. Yet, even with all of these relevent and valid arguments, the democrats appear to be continuing to lose ground with the public opinion. Why? Because one political force has been proven strong enough to conquer even the most enthused and logical of national movements. What force is stong enough to stop even the power of "Going Green" in its tracks. One clue: The answer is also green... money!

In my opinion, both sides of this debate truly hold equally important points. Yes, our environment is changing for the worse, and yes, it appears to be related to human consumption of oil. Yes, we are nationally addicted and dependant on oil that comes from our enemies. This is a problem. Yes, we ultimaltely will need to end this addiction, simply because our supplies are limited and will eventually run out.

No, we cannot continue to afford the ever rising price of oil. No, we should not depend on unstable, anti-American governments to supply it. No, we do not currently have a well enough developed alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels, and no, we do not have many other options than to drill off shore.

America needs to take both sides of this argument into equal consideration. It is my opinion that we should, for the moment, do everything in our power to keep oil prices reasonable. If that means drilling offshore, than we truly have no other choice for the moment. Yet, faith needs to be maintained in our alternative energy sources, because they are our future, whether we like it or not. America will need to rely on its historically tried and true resource: compromise. This, I feel, is the best and most effective way to deal with this current national pickle.

Information gathered from: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/88721/3/3/The_congressional_oil_drill