Throughout the two trimesters we have talked about like what president can and can’t do as well as what his roles as a president are. The president follows a certain set of laws just like everyone else does and sets an example for the rest of america to follow. Everyone has a different opinion on what the president should do and what he shouldn’t but what should he really be doing by moral standards. It is the duty as the president of the United States of America to protect and to serve his country as well as its citizens, but what is he supposed to do when there is no solution but only two options.
The president of the United States of America will be criticised regardless of how good his decisions are. This is so because who better to blame than the man running the country, and it will probably always be that way. When making a decision as the president there are no grey areas and no “what if’s” that haven’t been explored. What should a president do, besides resign, when no one majority will be happy with a decision he is going to have to make. The “Fiscal Cliff” (NBC News) for example is something that the president will undoubtedly be criticized for the next two or three decades. The president has the choice of passing the problem to the next president, or attempting to fix the problem once and for all with the risk of failure and recession and possibly depression. This kind of decision seems unfair to a president because there is no easy or obvious solution to the problem. The cliff was the new year (2013) when the bush tax cuts expire and the “White House” had to make a decision on whether to raise taxes again or to make spending cuts. So far nothing significant has been done to solve this solution, other than a small dent in the deficit that still yields 6 trillion to the debt over the course of 10 years. The biggest question I and other people have is when is something going to be done so that my generation and those to come don’t end up paying for such a great debt. Unfortunately the first problem is that no one knows WHAT to do about 16.7 trillion dollars and a huge deficit. The biggest problem i see is that this sort of thing hasn’t occurred in the nation’s history. With virtually no experience with this kind of problem and no way to really solve it, people in the “white house” are left with nothing to do but stall for time and to try and figure something out.
With such a large problem on the table for President Obama and no solutions yet, he will be heavily criticised on the amount of time it will take to act and solve this problem. The president needs to act quickly if he is going to be able to keep this problem under control for much longer. Considering the fiscal cliff situation is out of control, President Obama needs to be very careful on his progression with his gun control proposals. With so many problems at a high severity criticism only rises with each passing day as more and more people grow tired of the economic situation and social tragedies. Finding a temporary solution to the fiscal cliff needs to be found soon in order to at least maintain the debt without increasing it, unlike the solution now which raises the debt limit. Gun control proposals as well as other suggestions by President Obama will eventually be drowned out by the noise of impending economic crisis.
In order to maintain his title as “President” of the United States of America President Obama must act quickly and with wit to fix, or at least somewhat fix, the problem with the fiscal cliff. His criticism is hindering him especially with his new gun control proposals that are only causing controversy with the NRA. While the solution choices seem dim President Obama should be able to work something out in the peoples favor that won’t tap out the middle class but will still be fair to the higher earning people. This situation is the toughest i have seen and most worrisome i have heard about because it is effecting everyone and a solution needs to found quickly to ensure the safety of this nation’s economy.
Voter participation is very low. While America defines itself as a democracy, it is hard to back this assertion up when such little of its population participates in electing the leaders of our country. According the CNN, only approximately 51% of our population votes, a staggering low number. Citizens feel that their vote really doesn’t matter in the large scheme of things, however the democracy of the United States is hurt by not having a majority of the population voting. I believe that this lack of participation is embarrassing, and I am relieved that people are addressing this issue and examine way to fix it.
As an eighteen-year old high school student, the most humiliating statistic is the number of eligible youth voters. Jessica Babtsite reports that only 42% of eligible voters between ages eighteen to twenty-four vote. Personally, it does not surprise me that this number is so low. It seems as if politicians have neglected to reach out and connect the young people of America, and they have left us hanging. Most kids are indifferent about how our country is run, mostly because people have never cared to inform them. However, the problem is on both sides. Young people need to understand that it is pertinent to participate in the democracy that America has provided, and politicians need to understand that the young people of American have opinions and they do matter. In 1990, an organization called Rock the Vote was created to improve the statistic of youth voting. The program informed kids, and encouraged them to vote. This program also awoken the politicians, and made them understand how necessary it is to address the youth of America. In 1992, just two years after the program started, there was nearly a 20% increase in youth voting. In 2004, 1.2 million young people voted in the presidential election. In 2008, 2.25 million young people voted. However in 2012, the level of youth voting stayed the same. As numbers have increased though, there is no doubt in my mind that despite the recent turnout in 2012, numbers in youth participation will continue to rise.
Social media has as well begun to influence voter turn out. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, vlogs, and Youtube, and email have all greatly manipulated not only the Presidential elections, but also any government election across the world. In an article on Voice of America, an online news site, James Fowler proclaims just how social media can influence an election. He says that he once received an email that said, “There was also a link that you could click on that allowed you to look up your polling place. And in some of the messages we also showed people the pictures of their friends who
Social Media
had clicked on the ‘I Voted’ button earlier in the day.” Social media affects both sides of elections, the voters and the candidates. Voters can become very informed on any candidate within seconds, as well as develop opinions on candidates within seconds. Social media has allowed voters to connect to their candidates like never before. On the other hand, candidates can also connect with their people like never before as well. They can get a feel for what the people are feeling and what people’s opinions are. Through social media, it is much easier for candidates to conform to the idea of everyone, rather than just the people they meet face to face. All of the connections created by social media have definitely influenced voter turnout, and it has definitely increased the numbers.
There is no doubt in my mind that by addressing the issue of voter participation and creating ways to improve numbers such as Rock the Vote or social media tactics, voter participation will continue to rise. I predict that both youth participation and total voter turnout will be at its greatest percentage by the 2016 elections. I know I will definitely be voting for the first time!
The Fiscal Cliff was a problem that Americans faced at the end of 2012. We expected to see solutions, but when the time came to discuss solutions, there was a lot of pushed back dates and putting off discussions for other days instead of actual solutions. March is the month that most of the deadlines were pushed to and March is almost here, creating speculation about events to come regarding the economy. The article I read is titled Calendar of Fiscal Crazy: Congress and the Budget, from CNNMoney by Jeanne Sahadi on February 8th. The Article discusses the different things that were set for March and the possible solutions to the Fiscal Cliff that were never made final such as budget cuts and the economic plans from the President, House, and Senate.
The automatic spending cuts, or “sequester”, will cut how much the federal agencies are allowed to spend by $85 million over seven months. This could cause the economic growth to slow and could also cause over 1 million workers to lose their jobs. The spending cuts would most likely come from defense programs with entitlement programs being protected, which was all in Obama’s original plan as President.
The article discusses the different proposals from the President, House, and the Senate. Sahadi says in her article, “If history is any guide, lawmakers won’t take up most of his ideas. But his proposal is supposed to tee-up the budget debate.” From what I have learned about the government in class and the process in which bills are passed, it is not shocking that most of the President’s ideas will not be passed. The process for creating solutions and passing new laws is long and has many different steps. This article shows how difficult it is for the President to play a large role and perform the presidential duty as Chief of State and also Chief Legislator. The amount of work that goes into making something a policy or law makes it hard for the President and members of Congress and the Senate to have a real impact on Americans. There are high expectations for the President and the things he needs to do. He is expected to have a large impact on the rest of government and be able to fix problems, but he can’t do that effectively and with the ferocity that most people expect because all he can really do is suggest ideas with his plan, not actually make them valid until a majority of Congress and Senate also approves.
These regulations make it hard for Congress to act immediately. The article states that Congress has a deadline of March 27th to do something before federal funding “shuts down”. It is so difficult for Congress to make final decisions with a majority that they are giving them a deadline to make something happen. This forces people to choose a solution even if they think there could be a better one, such as the “sequester”. It is the best of a bad situation.
According to the New York Times, the issue of illegal immigration has been a very emotional one for more than two decades. Illegal immigrants made a huge impact on the 2012 presidential election, as the children of those immigrants, who are U.S. citizens, largely supported the Democratic Party, leading them to crush the Republicans. It has been a very heated debate in recent years on what should be done with the 11 million immigrants currently living in the United States. While the Democrats want a open path for citizenship of illegal immigrants and an even an easier process for their children, the Republican Party yearns for a more strict selection policy and also stronger border control. I believe that the Democratic proposal is necessary to solve the problem of illegal immigration by creating an easier and shorter path to citizenship; therefore, President Obama must use the necessary leadership roles of Chief Legislator and Chief of Party push the bill into a law.
I support the Democratic policies for a path to citizenship because I believe that if the United States gave a shorter time to give legal status, it would bring out more illegal immigrants willing to seek citizenship. If Congress codified the Republican Party’s proposal, then most illegal immigrants would not want to take the punishment of “longer path for illegal immigrants, to make it clear they are not jumping the line or being rewarded for violating the law to come to the United States.” Making the process more difficult will intimidate the illegal immigrants because they may feel that the process is not worth it. Although the Democrats’ proposal contains nothing about stronger border security, President Obama mentioned it in his immigration speeches in reference to stopping or slowing the flow of illegal immigrants. I support the Democratic Party’s policy primarily because having a long legalization process will only force the immigrants to hide from the government, where a shorter process may inspire them to seek citizenship. Even though the policy might initially encourage more illegal immigration flow, I believe that if Obama develops a stronger border security as promised, we can slow the illegal movement along the borders.
During the process of passing the bill, the President plays a crucial role as Chief Legislator. According to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is the President’s duty to recommend legislation to congress and he has the power to veto. As President, Obama decided he would be the presiding officer in the illegal immigration discussion, in which he has “remained committed to staying on the sidelines while a group of Republican and Democratic senators tries to reach an immigration agreement by the spring.” Since Obama is spearheading the legislation, he wants to make policy and law that will benefit the country as well as his party. This is part of his duty as Chief of Party, in which he is the leader and representative of the Democratic Party. So while he is encouraging the two parties to reach a compromise, he also has the duty to his party. In the discussion of illegal immigration and the path to citizenship, the President preserves these crucial roles of Chief Legislator and Chief of Party to make sure the bill gets passed and becomes law.
The illegal immigration discussion is a very important social issue because it pertains to the President’s role as Chief Legislator. These presidential roles are very important in understanding the politics of government, and make an important connection to the discussion in our government class. The issue of illegal immigration helps us understand the President’s role in the government, as well as seeing true politics in action. For better or for worse, politics is the primary motivation for the policies of most members of Congress. In this case, the immigrants played a crucial role in the 2012 election and helping them obtain citizenship will increase the power of the Democratic Party. This event in our country helps me visualize the President’s role in the government and what he actually does in the Oval Office. Also, the issue of illegal immigration gives me insight into what each party believes, and will help me form opinions when I am of age to vote. I believe that if Congress can compromise and reach a solution that will have the best of the Republican and Democratic policies, the country can eventually solve the illegal immigration problem. In order to get a cooperative Congress, President Obama must use his leadership abilities to guide them in the right direction so they might reach a solution that will satisfy everyone while still remaining true to his party.
It is not often that a Justice from the United States Supreme Court agrees to an interview on national television, or an interview of any kind for that matter. So when a Justice does come forward, it is a great opportunity to get a glimpse into some of the inner workings of the highest court in the land.
Article 3 of Section I of the United States Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” With this statement combined with multiple amendments, acts of Congress (specifically the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73)), and countless landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has become what it is today. Operating under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1-4105, the Supreme Court has the duty to serve at the top of the judicial branch as a vital part of the “checks and balances” system, a concept created by Montesquieu and incorporated into the structure of American government by the Constitutional Framers.
One of their longest serving distinguished justices and a strong believer in the practices and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution within the Supreme Court is Senior Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey and appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 to fill a seat vacated when Justice William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice, Scalia displays legal brilliance in his aggressive yet witty oral and written opinions, especially when he dissents. He is the talkative one on the court, asking more questions and making more comments than his peers. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has described Scalia’s performances saying:
Scalia doesn’t come into oral argument all secretive and sphinx like, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.
His written arguments are also famous for the sheer number of concurring opinions and dissents that he has had the privilege to author. Another Slate reporter, Conor Clarke comments on his writing style:
His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon.
Described by many as the premier legal thinker of his generation, his role on the court is that of the scholarly anchor of the conservative majority. Aside from his brilliant legal career and well-known conservative philosophies, Scalia prides himself in his devout Roman Catholic points of view. He is a family man with nine children, nearly thirty grandchildren, and a lifelong mate, Maureen McCarthy.
Thus, in the midst of this today’s hot political atmosphere with the influence of the Supreme Court ringing throughout the nation’s ears, Justice Scalia, somewhat of a political celebrity, put aside his reluctance to conduct interviews and sat down with Chris Wallace for “Fox News Sunday.” In the half-hour interview, aired July 29th, 2012, Scalia and Wallace discuss a broad range of topics.
Justice Antonin Scalia Interview with Mike Wallace, “FOX News Sunday”
Three major points that stand out to me are enumerated below:
I. Legal Philosophy
Referencing Justice Scalia’s new book, Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text, Wallace opens the discussion with Justice Scalia on the topic of judicial philosophy, specifically originalism and textualism. According to Scalia, one who subscribes to the practice of textualism believes that one should be accountable to the text alone; neither the perceived favorability of the outcome nor legislative and judicial history should bear any influence in one’s decision. As a sort of subset of the this philosophy lies the concept of originalism—the idea that the text should be interpreted under the context of when it was created, that “if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century” (Scalia Interview).
Moving to the opposite side of the spectrum, Wallace asks Scalia about another judicial approach called purposivism. Describing it as “probably the most popular form of interpretation in recent times,” Scalia explains purposivism as “consulting the purpose of the statute and deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose.”
At its root, this is the basis of the liberal “Living Constitution” theory, which maintains that the interpretation of the Constitution must change as the values and desires of society change. As President Woodrow Wilson believed, our nation is “a living thing . . . modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live.”
As observed through his response to the video clip of Justice Breyer subscribing to the idea of this “Living Constitution,” Scalia’s conservative judicial philosophy lies in stark opposition to these more progressive perspectives. As Scalia states, “What originalism means is that you give the Constitution the meaning that it had with respect to those phenomena that were in existence at the time, say, the death penalty.” For those phenomena that did not exist at the time, Scalia posits that while interpretive decisions must be made, the criterion for the interpretations must be based in the understood interpretations of the applicable statutes at the time. Essentially, while the electric chair did not exist in the times of the Constitution, death by hanging did, and it was not considered cruel and unusual. In deciding the case, originalists would question whether the electric chair is more cruel and unusual than hanging. For Scalia, there is no way that it is as it was adopted in the first place to be less cruel.
Most conservative originalists understand that the Constitution is imperfect and that society changes. Yet, the idea of an evolutionary Constitution is quite antithetical to the point of having a constitution: a document that places unchanging limits on the powers of the government to preserve the people’s social contract. For judicial conservativists, the only legitimate way to incorporate societal changes into the Constitution is through the amendment process as it ensures that changes are only made for those matters of the utmost importance. It safeguards the integrity of the Constitution while preventing simple reinterpretations at the momentary public whim.
II. Gun Control
In light of the recent “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado, Wallace also brought up the issue of gun control, a topic that has made its way into the media an increasing number of times in the past several years. In the 2008 majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Declaring the handgun ban in the nation’s capitol as unconstitutional, this landmark Heller decision was the first United States Supreme Court case to confirm that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Scalia makes clear, however, that the right as stated in the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Scalia in Heller opinion). In the interview, he also emphasizes the fact that the Second Amendment obviously only applies to those weapons that can be hand-carried, that one can “bear.” Even so, with technological advances allowing smaller weapons to cause immense damage, the extent of what limitations should be considered “permissible” will be up for discretion in future cases. Scalia, as a textualist, states that “My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
These comments shocked many ardent supporters of American’s right to “lock and load” as they questioned where the Scalia was that wrote the landmark gun control case. They would argue that the Second Amendment emphatically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” namely, that the people’s individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed population will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Thus, outrage immediately sprang up on the Twitter and Internet feeds as supporters saw the door opening for future gun-control legislation. Those in support of Scalia, however, would say that he was simply discussing the principles the court should apply in deciding the contours of the right to “keep and bear arms” in the various settings where a case could surface, just as they guided his majority opinion in Heller and Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
III. How Political is the Court?
The third major point of interest in the Chris Wallace interview revolves around the Supreme Court and its interaction with politics. When questioned about the politics of the court, Scalia responds that he does not believe that the court is political at all. For him, the facts that conservative judges vote for conservative outcomes and liberal judges vote for liberal outcomes as well as the 5-4 split votes with Republican-appointed judges on one side and Democrat-appointed judges on the other is all based upon their judicial methodologies. If Republicans are looking for originalist conservative judges and Democrats are looking for the opposite, then “Why should it be a surprise that after, you know, assiduously trying to get people with these philosophies, they end up with this philosophies?” (Scalia Interview).
I too believe that the court is not overly “political” but for reasons beyond Scalia’s argument that the court typically splits based on judicial methodologies. If one looks at history, dissents are not always along party lines. Thus, ideology does not always drive the dissent rate, but the types of cases heard by the Supreme Court drive the outcomes. As cases have become more complex, polarized, and controversial, dividing the Court of Appeals, they tend to make their way to the highest court in the land. Easy cases at the lower court levels with 8-1, 7-2, or similar outcomes rarely are heard on appeal. Thus, by nature and based upon historical data, future courts will have comparable divisions based upon the cases they choose to hear.
Yet, realistically, it seems to be impossible for the court to be completely independent from party affairs. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United stating, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interest, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Scalia describes the State of the Union as a “juvenile spectacle” that is inappropriate for justices to attend. In my opinion, the President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a lack of respectability and represents what is bad in Washington politics. While Scalia was present in seven of the first nine addresses after being appointed to the court, he hasn’t been to one since. (NY Times) Just as Scalia isn’t attending, recent addresses have seen a decrease in attendance among other court members, indicating that some are uncomfortable being put in such a “partisan” position.
Even when presented with a quote from Obama pressuring the court during the Affordable Care Act proceedings, Scalia remains restrained stating, “I don’t criticize the President publicly and he normally doesn’t criticize me.” He does give a brief comment on the court and politics continuing, “What can he do to me? Or to any of us? We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”
Furthermore, when Wallace questions Scalia about whether the unprecedented nature of the court—an unelected group—to overturn an act passed by congress (had the Affordable Care Act (ACA) been declared unconstitutional), Scalia engages on an explanation, and a very eloquent one in my opinion, of the role and function of the Supreme Court in American society:
Look, the most important role we play and the reason we have life tenure is precisely because now and then, we have to tell the majority, the people that they can’t do what they wanted to do. That what they want to do was unconstitutional and therefore go away. Now, that’s not going to make us popular. And you can say, oh, it’s very undemocratic and in a small sense it is. In the larger sense, it isn’t however, because it’s the American people who gave us the power. It’s the American people who said, no, there are some things we’re not going to let future legislators do, even if they want to do it. And we are simply applying the judgment of the American people over time.
Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the high court has overturned countless acts of Congress; it is the duty of the Supreme Court to do so. At the core of his statements, Scalia is describing how the Supreme Court is not and should not be accountable to the people, but to the Constitution alone. Their one and only role is to protect its integrity and in doing so protect the social contract of the people.
The interview concluded with a lively exchange concerning the question of his retirement from the bench. When Wallace asked about Scalia timing his retirement to give the appointment to a conservative President, Scalia reluctantly answered the question stating, “No, of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that.” For sure, Scalia is concerned about his legacy and the hole in the “originalist” philosophy that might result from his departure. However, Scalia made it clear, he doesn’t seem to be ready to say farewell to the law or his legal career just yet.
As Barack Obama goes through the reelection process, his desire to improve today’s economy is more than just evident but passionate as well. President Obama feels that the small amount of wealthy people compared to the enormous amount citizens of barely getting by is unfair. He wants to support the middle class by reducing income inequality and making the economy more fair. “The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important,” (Klein, 1) he said. Obama presents to the people his plan which contains “tax breaks for companies that keep jobs in the U.S, a new Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate unfair trade practices in other countries, support for clean energy industries, tighter financial regulation, and programs to help send more Americans to college” (Klein ,1). Obama recognizes this is a difficult but attainable task that if not acknowledged, would inhibit any development in making this world a better place. His ambition has overcome the fact that this plan is seriously opposed of the republicans in congress and he said “he will continue fighting, with or without their support” (Klein, 1).
There’s a big question here: is that the right or wrong thing to do? The way Obama chooses to handle this situation reflects the studies in our government class just last month: models of power. During the 19th century, the traditional Whig model of presidential powers was practiced because presidents felt as if the constitution covered and well put all aspects of government without flaw. Barack Obama imitates more of the modern stewardship model originated by Teddy Roosevelt. This model of power expands presidential powers, improves the Executive Office of the President, gives the president more advisers, and increases the role of the president. President Obama is a demanding and powerful president who will take complete charge disregarding all bodies of congress and maintaining the stewardship model of power. I feel this is an efficient way of leadership because it is necessary for a leader to always keep things in order even if those below him lack that ability. Yet this method has its flaws because it is tempting for a leader to develop tyrannical ways and take advantage of the power. I feel if the people chose their leader wisely with trust, a stewardship model of power is totally passable.
While the 2012 presidential election is merely around the corner, the candidates’ campaigns are becoming even more harsh and direct, specifically between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney’s detractors often target him for his work done at Bain Capital, pointing to companies in which he invested both time and money that failed, causing the loss of several jobs. Recently on Twitter, however, Barack Obama released information about a particular investment of Romney’s, tweeting, “After Romney’s firm drove a 105-year-old steel mill into bankruptcy in less than 10 years, they walked away with at least $12 million.” President Obama continues to tweet about the wrongdoings of Romney’s firm in the following hours, asking his followers to join him in the fight against ‘Romney Economics’. Mitt Romney had a retaliation plan in mind and within the same day, releasing a campaign video entitled ‘American Dream’ that defended Romney’s actions at Bain. The video references a steel company of Indiana by the name of Steel Dynamics that was evidently saved by Romney’s actions. Several Steel Dynamics employees are featured in the video, each revealing how much of an impact Steel Dynamics’ economic growth has had on both their finances, their families and their community. It includes what we know very well as an emotional appeal, or pathos, that evokes feelings of pride and reverence for the viewers. At one point, the voice in the ad says, “SDI almost never got started. When others shied away, Mitt Romney’s private sector leadership team stepped in.” Although Romney’s return address was a bit more subtle than Obama’s original attack on ‘Romney Economics’, the essence of politics can still be clearly noted in this event.
(Click the picture to watch the video on YouTube)
I believe that this confrontational back-and-forth debate displays the true nature of campaigning. In class, we explored the different tiers of elections, discussing the Electoral College, electoral strategy, money and elections, voter participation, and campaign commercials; but this disagreement, only one of many, between the top candidates in the 2012 presidential election has pushed me to think further about the importance and power of words while campaigning.We were able to look into the incredible amount of influence that money has in elections, however I would like to propose something that gives money ‘a run for its money’. Perhaps words, expressly harsh attacking claims against candidates, hold a similar influence. It seems as if politics are evolving into an even deeper etched divide between the two political parties as well as opposing candidates. It’s partly due to the fact that it’s election season. As we are in the midst of a very important presidential election, the more important the election, the more publicity it receives. However, the media, fellow politicians and voting citizens can see through this harmless example of politics in which Obama grills Romney for his poor economic tactics, thus encouraging Romney to retaliate, that words can be extremely powerful, and like the prominence of the election, the more direct and harsh the words, the more attention they will receive. Candidates have been employing this tactic for many years, as evident in campaign videos such as Lyndon Johnson’s well-known Daisy Girl attack ad of 1964. Despite the popularity of this tactic, is pinpointing often insignificant things about a potential candidate’s past actions truly in the spirit of elections? Is this knowledge that candidates are leaking about each other eventually going to be beneficial for the general public to know, or are they merely trying to elevate themselves by putting down others?
In my opinion, the primary focus of a President while campaigning is to tell the public of his personal policies and how they will benefit American citizens. He should discuss what he will do for his country if he is to be elected rather than investing too much time and money into attacking his opponents. After all, we are not necessarily voting on the candidate that has made the least amount of mistakes or has the least controversial past, we are voting on the candidate that in our minds will be the best at leading our country into success. In the end, the candidates are merely trying to gain as many supporters and guaranteed votes as possible in order to secure the victory, and they often go to extremes in order to do so.
Political fundraising is one of the most important aspects of the elections process. This year’s presidential election is shaping up to be the most expensive ever. The presidential candidates have already accumulated over $330 million, and they are expecting much more to come. All this money can be attributed to the huge influence Super PACs have had on elections. Super PACs have the power to potentially define the outcome of elections.
A PAC, or political action committee, is an organization that campaigns for or against political candidates by donating at least $1000. Until recently, outside groups were limited to contribute $100,000 on behalf of one candidate. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the federal government may not ban political spending by outside organizations or corporations. This resulted in the rise of Super PACs, or “independent-expenditure only committees”. Although the Super PACs cannot directly contribute to candidate campaigns, they are allowed to engage in independent political spending without any legal limits.
What exactly do these Super PACs do with all this money? Most of them utilize the ability to solely go on the attack against the opposing candidates. The most common and effective form of attacking is putting out negative ads against the opponent.
For example, conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts is planning to fund a $10 million campaign to bring down Barack Obama titled, “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama, the Rickets Plan to End His Spending for Good.” Ricketts primary concern is to end the budget deficit. The campaign is a 54-page proposal that essentially claims that Obama has misled the American people by portraying himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.” In addition, the plan is to bring up past ties between controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Obama in order to show how Obama’s ideologies have been negatively influenced from the beginning. This anti-Obama campaign has the potential to destroy his public image, which proves that Super PACs have the potential to define the outcome of elections.
This year’s election has been greatly influenced by a plethora of Super PACs that have already contributed $100 million. These Super PACs have led to one of the nastiest elections to date because of the flood of negative ads that they have leaked to the public. The negative ads are actually detrimental to democracy because they deter people from participating in the elections process. Super PACs undermine the basic principles of political equality because they take the power out of the hands of the people and place it in the deep pockets of an elite group donors.
President Obama is known for many things such as being the first black president, starting obama care, being president when Osama bin Laden was found and killed, and now for supporting gay marriage. The people of the United States have taken almost everything that president Obama has done and turned it into a controversy. Any president who makes big decisions usually causes controversy since the United States has many different opinionated groups. The most recent controversy that president Obama is facing is his support for gay marriage. The reason being is that americans feel as though he had came out by saying he supported gay marriage at the wrong time. They felt that he waited too long or some of the more conservative people think that he shouldn’t have said it at all. I personally think that it was a smart decision for him to come out and say that he supports gay marriage but I felt like he took more credit for himself than he should have because after all, Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan had come out before and endorsed and supported gay marriage. One of the reasons I feel like it is a good decision from president Obama is because polling showed that more than half of America supported gay marriage.
Over the years, president Obama has been liked for many things but image was also a factor in him being liked so much. He has the image of being a strong black man with supportive wife and two children. Already from just that he gets the family vote. President is also liked for his many appearances on television shows such as the late night show with Jimmy Fallon and also the View. This gives him a wide range of people watching to see “who he really is”. President Obama also has a twitter who is run by the Obama campaign staff who right now has close to 16 million followers. All of these factors into him being such a liked president but I believe that it will not help him enough to where if you took solely the people who just “liked” him, it wouldn’t be enough. As much as people like him, he has made many decisions who could have changed their minds very easily in the past four years. President Obama still has a good chance in winning the presidential race but it will not be so much of whether people like him or not.
Just Recently, President Obama stated that he supports same- sex marriage. This statement has caused a huge debate and interest in the people of America, as well as students like us studying the elections. Many questions have come up about this action that President Obama chose to make. Could this move be political move trying to gain more votes because he feels threatened by Mitt Romney? Or could it be that he actually feels that same-sex marriage is ok? I believe that President Obama should make this decision based off of his true belief, not because he is trying to gain support from more people. Having said that, it is a very smart move if Obama did this to gain more support, even if he doesn’t truly stand by it. However, we will never truly know the answers to these questions.
Same-sex marriage has always been a “state issue,” but as this issue became bigger and bigger it developed into a “national issue.” It is playing a crucial role in the elections of officials in our government. By choosing to support same-sex marriage, Obama is directly going against his republican contenders. This is a very bold move that could either help him or hurt him. There are currently thirty states that prohibit same-sex marriage.(1) This statistic alone shows that Obama’s decision to support same-sex marriage was very risky. Also recent polls show that “opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.” However, when looking at this statistic one must keep in mind that the majority of people that are against same-sex marriage are republican and it is their belief that same-sex marriage is wrong. Also, the majority of Republicans will not be voting for President Obama regardless because of the loyalty to their party.
This brings me to my main question that I have already mentioned and briefly talked about. Did President Obama choose to support same-sex marriage to gain support? In my opinion he did side with allowing same-sex marriage in order to gain more votes and the support of the homosexual people. The timing of this decision was also very odd to me as well. He chose to become public with this idea during the middle of the election process, and when it became clear whom he would be running against. A poll that was conducted by the New York Times states, “they thought that Mr. Obama had made it “mostly for political reasons,” while 24 percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”” (2) This just proves that most of America believes that President Obama did this as an act to win the election.
When candidates run for election they use many different tactics and ways to gain support of voters. Through our studies in government this year we have learned that candidates normally target a specific type of audience, such a young people or older people and many others. When Obama admitted to supporting same-sex marriage he gained the support of the LGBT. We will never know weather this action was due to gaining more votes or because he feels that same-sex is right, but we will soon find out if this move helped Obama win or lose the 2012 Presidential election.
it will probably always be that way. When making a decision as the president there are no grey areas and no “what if’s” that haven’t been explored. What should a president do, besides resign, when no one majority will be happy with a decision he is going to have to make. The “Fiscal Cliff” (NBC News) for example is something that the president will undoubtedly be criticized for the next two or three decades. The president has the choice of passing the problem to the next president, or attempting to fix the problem once and for all with the risk of failure and recession and possibly depression. This kind of decision seems unfair to a president because there is no easy or obvious solution to the problem. The cliff was the new year (2013) when the bush tax cuts expire and the “White House” had to make a decision on whether to raise taxes again or to make spending cuts. So far nothing significant has been done to solve this solution, other than a small dent in the deficit that still yields 6 trillion to the debt over the course of 10 years. The biggest question I and other people have is when is something going to be done so that my generation and those to come don’t end up paying for such a great debt. Unfortunately the first problem is that no one knows WHAT to do about 16.7 trillion dollars and a huge deficit. The biggest problem i see is that this sort of thing hasn’t occurred in the nation’s history. With virtually no experience with this kind of problem and no way to really solve it, people in the “white house” are left with nothing to do but stall for time and to try and figure something out.
21st Century Citizenship 
