It's our constitutional right!

In a parallel world, where political correctness doesn’t affect virtually every aspect of society, Sarah Palin would hang from a noose while John McCain burns in hell. However, this parallel world exists far from West Hollywood, where Chad Michael Morrisette sparked national controversy by publicly displaying just this scene with mannequins displayed in front of his home. After much pressure to remove the effigy, Morrisette got rid of the so-called Halloween decorations. But in an election where lipstick pigs overshadow policy issues, what’s the big deal?

While the effigy infuriated many, it calls important attention to Americans’ constitutional right to free speech. Although many found the display extremely offensive and excessive, the Secret Service, Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department and West Hollywood city Code Enforcement Division found that it violated no law. “‘The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it's idiotic and stupid and in bad taste," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff's Department.’” It can even be argued that the effigy is just another method of engaging voters in the election process. It brings up an important question: where do we draw the line between censorship and free speech?

One might consider, “what if this effigy was replaced with a mannequin of Barack Obama hanging from a noose?” This would have a completely different implication, linking the effigy with racist sentiments, reminding us of the not-so-distant lynching of blacks in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. However, this exact incident occurred just over a month ago, at a small Christian university in Newberg, Oregon. A life-size cardboard imitation of Obama was found hanging from a tree with fishing line attached to its neck. Although the act was repugnant and hateful, it was an act that was determined to fall under free speech, and no charges were filed against the students responsible.

When dealing with issues of censorship, it is a tight rope that must be carefully walked. Although the image of Palin hanging from a noose may not be every American’s preference in expressing their political views, Morrisette should be able to display this image on his own property, as long as he has no intention of violence (We can safely assume a gay couple from West Hollywood have no intentions of actually hanging Mrs. Palin from a noose). Once we start censoring what is “too extreme,” the definition becomes blurred and our 1st amendment rights can easily be infringed upon.

In a ‘melting pot’ country, Americans should be able to engage in wide range of political discussion, whether it be through town hall meetings, blogging, or even displaying their political views with a controversial effigy. The display actually is a great example of the enthusiasm felt by so many Americans across the country. In less than a week, history will be made: we will either have the first black president or the first woman vice-president. A record number of voters are expected to cast their ballot in just a few days. People everywhere are actually excited to vote- when is the last time Americans have felt this way? It is to be expected that in an election with such emotionally charged voters, extreme opinions will be voiced- and that’s ok.

In fact, an effigy that encourages political discourse should be encouraged, not prohibited. A gay couple in West Hollywood is simply engaging in political expression, showing their dislike of a candidate that goes against everything they believe in. Although many others would choose to express their views differently, there is no reason the couple should be castigated for taking a passionate stance on a very important election. Once we begin censoring these demonstrations of free speech, we move further and further away from the democracy we love. Free speech comes with a price- Americans will not always hear or see exactly what they want or necessarily agree with. But the consequence of limiting free speech is far greater, and we must accept differing views on important matters- regardless of the extremeness of these opinions.

After all, this is America.

Failing Freedom?

In a country where we value our freedom so highly, it is interesting to see our 36th place ranking for press freedom, according to the recent study by Reporters Without Borders (RWB). Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan all share the 36th ranking with us.

So some may say, "Well 36th sounds pretty good, right?" Well, if you look at many of the countries that have a better ranking, you may be surprised. Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are all tied for first- no big shocker there. But Jamaica, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Japan rank better and have more press freedom. RWB claims that the amount of peace in a country is directly related to free press, which completely makes sense. The U.S. and Israel are in a particularly fragile state, which negatively impacts free press.

So, what lesson can be drawn from all of this? Well, it is particularly interesting to note all the worthless bullshit that is thrown at us from the media, especially stories covering celebrities and useless lifestyle articles. Where are the newspapers covering third-party candidates? Or articles with more international news? It is impossible to know who really controls the media, but it clear that it is controlled by a handful of powerful companies, each with their own special interests. According to FreePress, the "Big Six" companies that control virtually all of the media are:

(1)General Electric
(2)Time Warner
(3)Walt Disney
(4)News Corp.
(5)CBS
(6)Viacom

How can we trust various websites when they are all controlled by the same companies? There are so many embedded journalists working to satisfy the needs of corporations- how is it possible for free press to exist when any journalist who rebels against the system is simply not printed?

There is no simple solution to improving free speech and press. All we can do is try to aim for peace. In a peaceful society, the government does not have to manipulate the media to run stories that distract citizens' attention away from the real issues. We must constantly remember that the media is not independent and take everything they publish with a grain of salt.

Fear Tactics

As the planes crashed into the Twin Towers, Barack Hussein Obama stood by with a big grin on his face.

Or at least that is what the McCain campaign would like us to think. Amidst Palin’s accusations of Obama “palling around with terrorists,” the GOP is exhausting every scare tactic in the book, just as Joe the Plumber is milking his 15 minutes of fame. The Republicans are hoping that by linking Obama to Ayers and creating an Obama-Osama name game, they will nab those gullible, ignorant voters that will surely never vote for a man with the middle name of a notorious dictator.

But just as roaches scatter when the light comes on, the Republicans will have to come up with something better as their frivolous accusations are revealed to be misleading.

Using fear tactics to sway voters is something that George W. perfected in the 2004 elections. He exaggerated the importance of the ‘War on Terror’ and told us we had to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He essentially scared everyone into voting for him, as Republicans are commonly viewed as stronger in dealing with war-related issues. Well, here we are four years later: we have an economy in peril of completely collapsing, a deteriorating education system, and a complete lack of quality health care. So NO. We are definitely not better off than we were 4 years ago.

The fact that the McCain campaign is using fear tactics is not surprising, considering their dismal standings in current election polls, showing Obama up by a significant amount. But a closer look at their attacks is embarrassing; almost more so than Palin’s ability to see Russia from her backyard.

Palin was recently quoted telling a group of donors that Obama “is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." First of all, since when did serving on a board of a charity group together automatically make Obama and Bill Ayers best friends? There is no evidence of anything suspicious in their relationship. It’s the same thing as saying I support Hugo Chavez because my best friend is from Caracas- it’s ludicrous! Second of all, can we really take anything the excessively-winking Palin has to say seriously?

In another lame attempt to influence voters, GOP Chairman Jeffrey M. Frederick of Virginia linked Obama to Osama bin Laden: “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon… That is scary." Actually, what’s more scary is your complete ignorance, Mr. Frederick. The fact that the GOP Chairman is saying such slanderous things makes me doubt the existence of honest politicians. Yes, Obama did know Bill Ayers, the former leader of the Weather Underground group, a radical group that was responsible for various bombings during the Vietnam era. But Obama has never expressed approval of any of Ayers actions, and has maintained that Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Further adding to the disparity between the two candidates, McCain appealed especially desperate when he attacked Obama for his relationship with Ayers during the third debate, accusing him of “launching his political campaign in Mr. Ayer’s living room.” McCain’s attempt to play to American’s fears of electing a president that might have possible terrorist ties actually backfired, as many Independent voters were turned off by this negative campaigning tactic. The economy is now the issue that is most disconcerting for Americans, and the terrorist-tactic that worked 4 years ago is just not having the same impact.

But McCain can’t possibly educate Palin on the intricacies of the economy with such little time left, so they have to stick to what they know- terrorism. Still clinging to the Ayers association, the Republican campaign is launching a wave of phone calls in key battleground states, saying that Obama has “worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans.” This whole terrorist association is overdone now, and if you guys can’t come up with a plan to save the economy, you might as well write your concession speech now.

The Republican campaign probably thought they had stumbled on to a gold-mine when they realized Obama had interface with Ayers years ago. But it was a superficial avenue to pursue, and is actually backfiring on them. Instead of exaggerating the terrorist relationships of Obama, McCain should learn to maintain his positions on the issues and Palin should brush up on her geography- well, actually everything while she’s at it.

Un movimiento valeroso

In a controversial move, Judge Baltasar Garzón has begun a criminal investigation into the vanishings of thousands of Spaniards during the Spanish civil war. This is the first time that a judge has investigated the Spanish civil war, and it is an important step in the right direction.

While living in Spain, the taboo topics that one should not mention became very clear to me. At the top of that list were politics and the Spanish civil war. Even further complicating things, I was living in the Basque region of Spain, one of the most repressed regions under the Franco regime. Although memories of the brutal killings and oppression of self-expression are not too distant, they are distant enough to not be talked about. So it’s going to be interesting to see how Spaniards will react to Garzón’s investigation.

Albeit controversial- something definitely not new to Garzón- this investigation is something that should have been done a long time ago. Many of Franco’s right-hand-men escaped without prosecution for the killings of 500,000 people. Garzón’s is making a courageous effort to give closure to many families who don’t even know what happened to their loved ones, let alone the whereabouts of their bodies.

President Zapatero has praised Garzón’s decision and believes it will have a strong impact. It will show Spaniards that “Franquismo” (the term used to describe Franco’s rule), will never occur again. It legitimizes the Spanish courts and definitely shows that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated in Spain.

However, a possible disturbance might soon be seen in the Basque region. The terrorist group ETA (Basque extremists seeking independence) thrives off of political movements such as this, and view it as a motivational tool to fire up supporters. ETA was formed during the time of Franco, opposing the serious restrictions placed on Basque people. Although ETA is much weaker now, stirring up past discrimination is a tactic which might incite acts of violence.

Voicing past injustices is great progress for a country with citizens who are very private regarding such difficult issues. But with all great leaps of courage, dangers are unfortunately linked as well. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out- hopefully not resulting in bombings or other acts of terror.

It's finally arrived...

The moment no one thought could occur has exploded and buried us in the wreckage. People are scared. No, that's an understatement- people are petrified and frantic. The stock market continues to plunge every day and if the trend continues, the Dow will be at 0 in the next few weeks. Eugene Robinson rightfully questions how McCain and Obama are going to fix the economic crisis, besides just giving generic, cookie-cutter answers that never really answer the question.

What is the plan guys? I want to know how every dollar of the 700 billion dollar bailout is going to be used, because it is furthering Americans' servitude each and every day. And when (IF) you answer the question, could you avoid the exorbitantly used responses: "America has the hardest working workers in the world" and "Not only Wall Street, but Main Street is suffering as well!" Frankly, I'm sick of the bullshit. We all know these predictable and useless answers. And please please please, come up with a better hypothetical street to replace Main Street. In fact, I can relate more to Crenshaw Blvd than I can Main Street.

So yes- I too, like my fellow Americans, am worried. My grandparents have lost half of their retirement in a few weeks, coupled with a huge loss in stocks. How are Obama and McCain going to fix that? Borrow MORE money? The reality is setting in and is even more troubling than the first Great Depression. In our globalized New World Order, we're all screwed. There is no where to run because EVERYONE is in trouble. Even Iceland.

So give me the answers I need to hear- whether or not it's exactly what I want to hear. Until then, my vote will hang in limbo until an alternative candidate presents some solutions.

The Faulty Two-Party System

The duopoly of the Democratic and Republican party in the United States is frequently regarded as being an intrinsic attribute of the Constitution. It is often cited that a two-party system is more stable, has broad support and is thus more politically moderate and prevents a possible ‘split voting’ situation. However, the dominance of the two-party system stifles political progress by limiting alternative choices, which may better reflect voters’ opinions. Although third-party candidates are often viewed as “spoilers” or a “waste of a vote,” they can truly impact the political structure and should be encouraged rather than marginalized. By analyzing the shortcomings of the two-party system, it becomes clear that the introduction of third-party candidates would encourage progress in a system which often alienates voters and only partially expresses the views of Americans.

The two-party system can be traced back to the Federalists vs. the Jeffersonian-Republicans, the former wanting a stronger central government and the latter believing in more state power. However, when faced with the idea of parties or factions, many of the founders of the Constitution believed that they were more harmful than beneficial. George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party,” as did John Adams, who believed that “a division of the republic into two great parties…is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” In fact, the Republicans and Federalists “did not think of each other as alternating parties in a two-party system,” but rather believed that the other would eventually be phased out and a one-party system would ensue. Hence, the notion that the party-system was a vision of the founding fathers is inaccurate, and more a result of opposition than decisive consideration. Through much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the term ‘party’ and ‘faction’ carried a negative connotation. But over time, the negative implication of a two-party system has faded and has become a staple of American society.

Modern day politics has become centered on the two major parties- the Democrats and the Republicans. While many other parties exist, notably the Green Party and Independent Party, the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two which carry significant political clout. While it is argued that these two parties can effectively represent the views of their constituents, various surges in third-party support throughout history have suggested otherwise. Political scientist Hugh P. Williamson draws attention to some of the flaws in the classic Democratic-Republican support: “We proceed upon the obviously fallacious assumption that together these two parties express all of the political principles which any substantial group of citizens would have or care to express.” As a country which prides itself on being a cultural ‘melting-pot,’ it’s hard to believe that we can break down our political views into two definitive categories that the Democrats and Republican completely encompass. Rather, it is more probable to assume that some Americans are being left behind. Williamson further expands his claim and argues that “The practical effect of this situation is that many American citizens are partially, and many more are wholly, disenfranchised as effectively as though they were forcibly denied the right to vote at the polls on election day.” The disenfranchisement of voters results from a number of reasons and raises challenges to the validity of the two-party system.

As a result of the two-party system, voters may feel alienated in a process which ideally should elect officials that will carry out their best interests. Williamson states that our two-party system forces voters into one or the other of the two major parties and many people vote on the basis of the “lesser of two evils.” Why should voters feel like they are obligated to vote for someone they don’t even agree with? As a result of the limitations of alternative candidates, the two-party system can dissuade voters from voting at all. Many people would rather abstain from voting than cast a ballot for someone they don’t even believe in or agree with. A loss of faith in the two-party system calls attention to the need for alternative choices. In a 1995 L.A. Times poll, roughly half of the public considered the two-party system to be “unsound.” Furthermore, in an NES item asking whether parties “make the government pay attention to what the people think,” the percentage saying “not much” had grown from a mere 13% in 1964 to 30% in 1995. The growing disillusionment with the two major parties begs the call for alternative choices for voters. But the reputation of a “wasted vote” that is often attached to a vote for a third-party candidate presents a significant challenge in including more choices for voters.

The idea of the “wasted vote” is routinely attached to third-party candidates, which has proven to be misleading throughout history. Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr and Edward H. Lazarus highlight some important contributions of third-parties:

The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.

Although not being elected directly, third-party candidates that gain significant support from voters can carry influence in major political decisions. If we look at the 1992 election, a third-party candidate named Ross Perot managed to get 19% of the popular vote. While Perot was not elected to the presidency, his popular support caused other politicians to take notice and listen to what he had to say. Walter J. Stone and Ronald B. Rapoport provide interesting evidence of the impact of Perot’s candidacy in 1992:

Evidence of the Republican bid for the policy-based affections of the Perot constituency is found in the Contract with America offered in the fall of 1994 as a rationale for electing a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. The Contract emphasized the Perot issues if a balanced federal budget, reform, and limiting American commitment to internationalism. Just as notably, the Contract omitted references to Republican priorities such as stopping abortions and promoting free trade that united the base of the Republican Party but were strongly opposed by supporters of Ross Perot.

Third-party candidates gain popularity when voters are not satisfied with the Democratic or Republican candidates and feel as if they have neglected important issues which third-parties are willing to confront. In order to improve the inflexible two-party system, voters must let go of the notion of a “wasted vote.” As Lowi explains,

…a vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted. If the vote is for a candidate of a dissident party, it is a protest vote which can instill considerable anxiety in the leadership of the major parties… Major third parties in the past have disappeared because of their success. How can that be considered a wasted vote?

Once voters stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for candidates they actually believe in, progress will be made and changes will occur.

However, history, as well as current challenges, shows that the path to greater influence of third-parties is not that simple. Third parties have come and gone throughout the years and have never been able to gain a strong hold. For example, in 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party attracted more than 25% of the vote, only to disappear in the next election. In 1924 Robert La Follette drew 17% of the popular vote under the Progressive banner, but did not reappear in 1928. And in 1968, George Wallace’s American Independent Party candidacy was supported by 13.5% of voters, but this was followed in 1972 by the AIP’s paltry 1.4% showing when Wallace was not the party’s nominee. Due to the short-lived nature of third-parties, funding is far less compared to Democratic and Republican funds- and in politics, money talks. Media coverage also focuses on the two major parties and often neglects third-parties agendas. “In 1980, the leading newspapers and weekly news magazines gave Reagan and Carter about ten times more coverage than all eleven third party and independent candidates combined.” Moreover, it has become virtually impossible for third-party candidates to compete in presidential and vice-presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates requires any candidate who wishes to debate to have polled at least 15 % support, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. There are two obvious problems with these requirements- (1) it is virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to poll 15 % support when they are running against Democrats and Republicans financially supported by wealthy corporations and interest groups and (2) the polling organizations which poll “likely voters” are not targeting voters who would vote for third-party candidates, as they are usually the voters who tend to be so disenchanted that they refrain from voting all-together.

The challenges that third-parties face in the United States are ubiquitous, yet not impossible to overcome. In order for third-parties to gain more influence, a grassroots effort must begin at the local level. Voters must shed the notion of a ‘wasted vote,’ and realize that electing third-parties might be one of the best ways to affect change in politics and address issues that the two main parties have been ignoring for years. It would be idealistic to suggest that a third-party candidate will one day be commander-in-chief. But third-parties present an alternative to the rigid boundaries and issues that the Democrats and Republicans adhere to. Small changes at the local level- through local third party candidate elections- can have a ripple effect, causing the two main parties to listen to the alternative views and needs of their constituents.