Gay Marriage

In a society were quarrels are developed easily, one battle stands out, Gay Marriage.  The dominant parties, Republican and Democrat, have carefully delayed an official party platform until days before their respective conventions.  The Republican Party has stated they oppose not only gay marriage, but also any civil unions not between a man and a woman.  The Democrats have affirmed their support for legal marriage between people of the same sex.  The unique aspects of this disconnect are the respective reasons for why gays could either marry or not marry.  Both sides believe their opinion is valid, but based on the only legitimate body in our government, both sides are misguided.

A quintessential idea among conservatives is to preserve the framer’s desired form of government.  Although it is nearly impossible to derive the exact form of government they wished for without conjecture, the conservative party has deemed that our founding fathers believed marriage was between a man and a woman, exclusively.  The telescoping bias that this idea generates, only solidifies the invalidity of this perception.  If the framer’s believed that marriage was an issue in which the government can intervene, why did they not establish that in the constitution?  Many opponents to the conservative reasoning propose that this ideology is derived from the bible, where it clearly states that a man shall not love another man.  The bible is a legitimate method of governance to many people in the nation, but, the founding fathers did espouse numerous times that the government shall be free of any religious control.  Many conservative ideologists have stated that since congress has not amended the constitution,  and since the Supreme Court has not declared gay marriage constitutional, than marriage should remain between a man and woman.  This unique belief is sound, but it does not clearly explain why gay people cannot get married, it simply diverts the issue.

Many citizens believe that the gay community is being ostracized and dehumanized because of their sexual preference. To support their platform on gay marriage, liberal ideologues have stated that marriage is a right given to every citizen of this country.  The constitution does not explicitly state that marriage is a right granted to every citizen, therefore, the liberals have no legal evidence. Liberals often proclaim that our framer’s designed this country to ensure every man is created equal.  Unfortunately for the liberals, this idea was placed in the declaration of independence, a document that does not possess legitimacy among our government.  

This argument boils down to legal legitimacy.  There are only two ways in which gay marriage can be made constitutional, either the constitution is amended by congress and the states, or the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage.  Although it is difficult to accurately predict what the framers believed, the authors of our constitution did insert a very powerful provision, the tenth amendment.  The tenth amendment accounts for the adaptation of our society to modern times, and diverts power to the states to decide what is constitutional and what is not, if it is not explicitly stated in the constitution.  The great duality of federalism allows for citizens of decide the outcome of this issue.  The only true constitutional way for this idea to be resolved is to leave it up to the state legislatures. 

Giving power to the states also promotes democracy.  Candidates can now ensure to voters their belief, and this will allow voters to select candidates who will vote the same way their constituency votes.  If a state population is in favor of gay marriage, it is the state’s duty to elect members of the legislature who will pronounce gay marriage legal.  Many states have already begun to litigate on this issue, but many are waiting for the federal government to issue a ruling.  Both arguments contain emotional legitimacy but no legal legitimacy.  It is difficult to discern which side is correct, many voters often decide based on instinct or previous experiences.  As society grows more progressive, gay marriage will gain enough supporters to be proclaimed constitutional, but the conservative coalition is a prominent force in today’s politics and shows no signs of being stymied.  This issue will continue to draw controversy until it is legally decided.

http://www.pdxqcenter.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/prop8signs.jpg

Modern Politics

Two weeks ago I attended a debate between Congressman Brad Sherman and Congressman Howard Berman, two candidates competing for California’s 30^th district.  Throughout the course of the debate I paid close attention to the strategies each candidate was implementing.  Both candidates spoke of their impressive tenures representing valley citizens, but what they engaged in mostly was criticizing each other’s record.  Both candidates attempted to increase the severity of their opponents faults or shortcomings, for example Howard Berman had printed out the days when Brad Sherman missed a significant vote, and claimed his absence was representative of his work ethic, when in fact Sherman could have been in the valley hosting town hall meetings and paying closer attention to his constituents.  Brad Sherman claimed that Berman continuously votes among party lines to maintain his political clout, when in fact his votes may be derived from deeply ingrained personal beliefs that happen to adhere to strict democratic ideology.  Both candidates made exaggerated inferences based off of conjecture and an inadequate amount of facts.  This debate illustrates a flaw that can be applied to a new modern political practice, the campaign platform that focuses on the negatives of the challenger, rather than the positives of the candidate.

The basic idea of a plurality vote is to gain the most votes out of any candidate.  How  does a candidate go about doing so? They inform their constituents of their experience, beliefs, and characteristics, in order to persuade them to vote in a favorable way.  A public servant is able to serve his public well because his constituency shares his beliefs; their analogous values allow him to make decisions on behalf of the citizens, almost as if they themselves were voting.  This is the idea the framers strove to achieve, but life undergoes gradual change, and due to certain events, the modern political world has adapted.

American citizens first became skeptical of our government during the 1960’s, our global conflicts in the east and the ways our government chose to handle those events created widespread distrust.  The Vietnam war inspired riots and revolt, primarily among the younger voters, who coincidentally now dictate elections.  Following the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal was released to the public, and citizens now felt that they could no longer trust the activities of politicians, and the entire country, now embraced the widespread hate for government that was prevalent among younger citizens.  Ford’s pardoning of Nixon further established to the citizens the perceived selfish nature of our government and its influential figures.  After the turbulent era that included the Vietnam War, violent student protests, and increasing inflation, citizens demanded they be more informed on the political process.  Soon politicians realized it was easier to persuade a voter that the opposition was wrong, rather than persuading a voter that they are correct.  When a politician states a positive off of their record, it is almost always met with opposition and skepticism.  But now that citizens are used to politicians acting in a self-fulfilling manner, when they come across a claim accusing a politician of being selfish, it is easy for them to perceive it as fact.

Now we transition back into the 2012 election, an election that was predicted to be the most vicious election of all time, and it has not failed to meet its expectations.  Various topics are now the center of controversial debate, the economy, women’s rights, and our various wars.  Both parties are able to formulate negative aspects of potential litigation by the opposing party. Millions of dollars are spent on painting opponents in a negative light, and the most inrtiguing aspect of this new trend is that many of these accusations are false.  For example, an organization named Politifact keeps track of various statements made by a wide array of important figures, and many of the claims these candidates are making are either false or greatly exaggerated.  In modern politics, conventions are now organized almost for the sole purpose of stripping legitimacy away from their opposition.  We saw republicans do this during the 1980 Republican Convention when Reagan was successfully able to convince voters that the economic downturn in the mid 70’s was caused by Carter’s lack of leadership and poor policy making.  This tactic was also implemented by the democrats during the 1996 Democratic Convention, when Bill Clinton was able to portray Bob Dole as a replica of Newt Gingrich, and associated him with favoring the rich and attempting to pass anti-women legislation. 

The strategy of attacking ones opponent is so widely used because of its effectiveness.  I do not believe people enjoy speaking negatively about another human, but the fundamental element that each politician works for is power, and power is achieved by winning.  In modern politics, people adhere to Machiavelli’s bold statement, “the end justifies the mean.”  The mean by which politicians currently practice, is degrading the candidacy of their competition, simply because it works.  I personally am much more persuaded when I hear about the accomplishments and future ambitions a representative has, not about how poor of a job his competitor is doing, but I am not like most voters. 

I now pose the question, is it possible to achieve, in this era, a campaign centered around the positives of a candidate?  I can confidently say that as long as there is such substantial political and ideological divide among our country, that no, it cannot be achieved.  There exist to many rifts among society that prohibit us from coexisting peacefully together without any quarrels.  All I can predict for certain is the barrage of negative advertisements that are being rushed to cable companies to be broadcasted nation wide, all trying to convince you, why “my opposition is wrong.”

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/assets_c/2012/03/Republican-and-Democrat-symbols-thumb-500x286.jpg

Todd Akin, A Mispoken Man

The scrutiny that every politician is subject to seems overwhelming.  Every word muttered by a public servant is seen as a direct representation of his or her constituents, their political affiliation, and their country.  I pose the question, is this scrutiny deserved? Some may argue that politicians are essentially humans, no different than you or me, and are subject to occasional mistakes, while some may argue that they must conduct themselves in a very disciplined manner because they represent a vast network of people.  Citizens seem to be responsive to apologies when a public figure misspeaks mildly or states incorrect facts, but each scenario must be dealt with on a case by case basis.  There are false remarks, and then there are some severely incorrect and rude remarks that are difficult to take back.

Over the weekend, Todd Akin, a congressman from Missouri who is also running for the senate in the 2012 election, stated on a radio show that in the case of "legitimate" rape, the woman's body will undergo means to ensure that pregnancy does not occur.  Aside from the obtuse biological error in this remark, it just comes off as offensive, not only to women, but to all citizens.  The idea that our lawmakers can believe something like this is repugnant.

What Todd Akin did in the moment was comprehensible to him.  He is running in a state that has shifted to the right of the political spectrum since Obama took office, and he was attempting to convey a strong pro-life value.  In the process of appeasing conservative voters, Akin forgot that the rest of the country was listening, a country that elected a democratic president and a democratic senate.  He did not realize the potential magnitude of backlash from opposite-minded voters. In the midst of his comment, he put the Republican party in a tough position, while many Republicans may concur with Akin's view, they do not want to vocalize it, in order to maintain power.  Now Republicans must denounce Akin's comments and shift to a more centrist view on abortion, although they stated they will continue to fight for the "sanctity of life."  Akin's comment may also deter women from voting for republicans in the upcoming election, a demographic the Democrats are targeting heavily after the Ryan vice presidential announcement.  Akin's comments alongside with Ryan's strong pro-life views will cause many female voters to perceive the Republican party as having an "anti-women" agenda.  Not only are women disgusted by the comments made by Akin, various republican leaders have now called upon him to respectfully bow out of the race and let another republican candidate run in order to have a fair chance at the Missouri senate seat.

Akin has denounced the requests for him to stand down, and believes that he can shift his campaign back on track.  As a democrat I would be happy if he stayed in the race, Akin on the ballot will most likely result in a McCaskill win, which means one more democrat in the senate.  On the other hand, as an American I would like to see Akin leave the race.  I, and many others cannot burden the fact that a man who has such influence in policy  making can display such disrespect towards women and the horrific event that is rape.  As of now Akin is refusing to step down, but many threats have been made by republican powers, including the republican senatorial committee which has stated they will halt the  5 million dollars that they were previously going to donate to Akin's efforts.  I predict that Akin will step down soon, but he will try to do everything in his power to heal the wound he made to his legitimacy, but the speed and sensationalism of this story will leave Akin's political career in ruins.

Akin on the Jaco Report

http://flapsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Todd-Akin.jpg