Monday night before midnight Arizona governor Doug Ducey vetoed a bill that would allow law enforcement to hide the names of police officers involved in fatal shootings or beatings for 60 days. This would prevent the public from finding out which police officer was involved in things. The thought behind this bill was for a cool down period after an event happened.
However, when the bill was proposed there was much concern over it. Civil rights groups and even some police chiefs were some that had concerns over the bill. The police chiefs believed that it would cause distrust in police and not allow them to do their job. I also believe this. If police officers could get away for 60 days after fatally shooting someone it could happen more often as they would not be as concerned with their name being released.
It has caused a split between law enforcement in Arizona, as some are for the bill and others are against it. To add another law that’s going to add distrust or adversarial relationships is not the way to go,” Roberto Villaseñor, the president of the association and chief of the Tucson Police Department, said Monday. He believes that if he had to bring up the subject again 60 days later it would cause even more problems. However, Steve Smith, who sponsored the legislation, noted that the bill had bipartisan support. “I think it’s a good bill, and I think it would have protected our officers,” he said.
I believe this bill would have been a bad idea if it had been passed. It would have caused more distrust towards police in a time where there is much distrust going on. I understand that they are only trying to protect their police officers and their families, but this is not the way to go. Had this been passed before Ferguson and other police shootings that have been happening I think it would have passed. What are your thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/arizona-governor-doug-ducey-vetoes-holding-back-the-names-of-officers-in-shootings.html?ref=politics
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Monday, March 30, 2015
Campaign Funding
A successful election campaign depends on communication, and communication costs money. However, it is believed by some that money has the potential to corrupt a candidate, to drive him or her to serve their own interests or the interests of their campaign donors rather than the public good. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush and John Kerry raised nearly half a billion dollars in private funding in their bids to win the White House.
Recent history tells us that the magnitude of big donors' campaign spending rises as their commitment to the public interest shrinks. Mercury Insurance and its founder and chairman, George Joseph, spent a combined $31 million in 2010 and 2012 to pass two almost identical ballot initiatives to remake state auto insurance rules in Mercury's favor and to the public's disadvantage. The spending was so conspicuous that voters recoiled, rejecting both measures.
Big business and political campaigns have become closer in recent history and is driving politicians to appeal to big business and not the public they are meant to serve. With increased funding from corporations it has created corrupt policies and biased voting practices on the part of elected officials.
Reform is needed and it is needed now!
Take a look at recent articles on the subject
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Bipartisan Medicare Bill
 |
| Courtesy of Boston Globe |
This is what we can accomplish when we focus on finding common ground.The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would spend $900 million less than if Congress decided to completely freeze Medicare payment rates over 11 years but would increase the deficit by $141 billion over the same amount of time.
Besides from doctor repayments the bill also would renew the Children's Health Insurance Program for two years and provides $7 billion to 1,000 community health centers, also for two years. While it is expected to be harder to pass in the Senate than in the House, Some Senate Democrats are unsure about the bill as that $7 billion funding is not to be used for abortions unless there are cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in jeopardy. Pelosi, as a supporter of abortion rights, encouraged her fellow Democrats to support the bill as
The abortion language in the bill is already in place for community health centers and will expire after two years.But there are some complaints on the medical side in regards to this bill. Dr. Don McCanne of the Physicians for a National Health Care Program said:
In the fervor to finally rid us of the flawed...model of setting Medicare payment rates, Congress is about to pass legislation that includes ill-advised, misguided and detrimental policies that could cause irreparable harm to our traditional Medicare program.While president of the American Medical Association Dr. Robert Wah said:
The Senate must act... to stop a looming 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements that will force reductions in access to health care for America's seniors, military personnel and their families.While I think that the most of the federal programs have their faults and misuses, Medicare included, there needs to be a change that would be for the better good of the average population. These changes seem well and good and if doctors truly want to help people they should accept that traditional methods are not always effective, and if they are it has an expiration date.
It is also nice to see that the two parties can work together and is reassuring that are system does work and can work when correctly done so. Medicare has been a program that is been around for a long time now and these proposed changes, if not approved by the Senate, will hopefully open the door for more proposed changes in terms of health care and health insurance.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/26/house-doc-fix-medicare-bill/70481156/
Other Sources for information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/us/house-passes-bill-changing-medicare-fee-formula-and-extending-childrens-insurance.html?_r=0
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/03/19/house-leaders-push-deal-fix-medicare-payments-doctors/vLKZCt734SqUdCvQJebLIN/story.html
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The Political Culture of New Hampshire
Having traveled to many different states and having observed the political culture within these seats, I have noticed several major differences between New Hampshire and many of its New England neighbors. New Hampshire has always been a spotlight within the American political system because of our first in the nation primary. This has given New Hampshirites much more attention than other states in the region. The attention has acted as a catalyst that has since developed an oddly unique civic culture within the state that differs greatly from others.
First and foremost New Hampshire natives are known for their upfront or abrupt manner in which they converse with candidates. They aren't afraid to ask a candidate tough questions, but beyond that citizens of the Granite State often ask questions in a very candid manner. They are not afraid to come off as gruff and they'll never beat around the bush. With this New Hampshire citizens will press a candidate for an answer. Frequently when asked a question they aren't prepared for, a candidate will give some long drawn out answer that doesn't really answer anything. While some other New Englanders will let this slide, New Hampshirites will press someone for a clear and articulate answer.
As mentioned before the state of New Hampshire receives a lot more attention than a state with its population/points normally does. I have noticed that this has also created a sense of "entitlement" that is uncommon in many other places. This isn't necessarily a negative, it is just an uncommon traits. Many citizens feel that they are paving the way for the rest of the country and thus they deserve more attention than others so that they can make an informed decision. There is a famous saying that circles New Hampshire politics that describes the average NH voter. When asked what they think of a candidate a person will often respond "I don't know, I've only met them three times" this perfectly exemplifies the unique civic culture within the state of New Hampshire. Have any of you noticed anything similar?
Message to Iran, back channel or felony?
I am not sure how many of us have been keeping up with it, but recently, a letter was sent from 47 Republican members of the Senate to Iran. This letter said that Iran should not make a nuclear deal with the United States because any deal that President Obama makes with Iran will not be upheld once he leaves office.
What do you all make of this? The last time something like this happened, Richard Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks and became president. Many people believe this is a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids any US citizen without proper authority from directly influencing negotiations between the U.S. and any foreign country. Violating the Logan Act is a felony.
Many times the Logan Act has been referenced, but this time, 47 people have directly attempted to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.
What do you all make of this? The last time something like this happened, Richard Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks and became president. Many people believe this is a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids any US citizen without proper authority from directly influencing negotiations between the U.S. and any foreign country. Violating the Logan Act is a felony.
Many times the Logan Act has been referenced, but this time, 47 people have directly attempted to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Political Party History in New Hampshire
This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.
Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.
PARTY HISTORY
Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.
At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).
Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).
In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).
Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republicn legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against teh trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalsit-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.
The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.
The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.
Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).
New Hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.
The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.
ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)
Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.
Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.
Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.
Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.
Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.
PARTY HISTORY
Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.
At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).
Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).
In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).
Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republicn legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against teh trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalsit-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.
The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.
The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.
Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).
New Hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.
The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.
ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)
Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.
Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.
Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.
Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Blog Schedule
Week of 3/9 Week of 4/13
Jackie Daniel S.
Brianna Alexa T
John R Petro
Joe B Jared M
Week of 3/23 Week of 4/20
Travis B Jackie
John R James M.
Rebecca W Michael F
Joseph H Rebecca W
Week of 3/30 Week of 4/27
Daniel S Samantha B
Sam S Travis B
Phil W Petro
Jared M Joe B
Week of 4/6 Week 5/4
Samantha B Phil W
Sam S Alexa
Brianna Joseph H
Michael F James M
Week of 3/9 Week of 4/13
Jackie Daniel S.
Brianna Alexa T
John R Petro
Joe B Jared M
Week of 3/23 Week of 4/20
Travis B Jackie
John R James M.
Rebecca W Michael F
Joseph H Rebecca W
Week of 3/30 Week of 4/27
Daniel S Samantha B
Sam S Travis B
Phil W Petro
Jared M Joe B
Week of 4/6 Week 5/4
Samantha B Phil W
Sam S Alexa
Brianna Joseph H
Michael F James M
Monday, March 9, 2015
"The Power of We"
“America is what we make of it.”
Ironically, the task of coming up with a topic to write about for this blog post was very difficult for me, because I actually write HubPages, as a hobby. I spent considerable time thinking about what I wanted to write about, the nature of a blog, and what you all would like to read about. I decided to utilize the blog entry the way we are studying it, as the tool providing a voice for the American Public, it’s my voice.
This past Saturday, I was at the gym and watching the news (because it was the only thing that would come in clearly on the treadmill TV), and I stumbled upon live pre-coverage of the speech that was to be given in Selma, Alabama by the President in an hour. They were making a big deal about it being a speech that he wrote himself, and had been working on for some time, so naturally I wanted to watch it too. The dedication speech he was giving was in honor of those who marched there peacefully for their voting rights, on that day 50 years ago in Selma, Alabama. The peaceful march turned into a brutal violation of civil and human rights, when the law met the marchers on the other end of the bridge with batons and boots, they beat those innocent people and the day is now known in history as bloody Sunday. I left the Gym and went home to watch the event with a bowl of popcorn and a notebook in hand. Well, not really the popcorn, but I did make an afternoon of it and I am glad I took the time to sit and really listen.
I am starting this out with a small disclaimer about my lack of media attention. When I am not in school, or at work, I am doing home-work, or reading…novels. I do not watch any daily news programs regularly, as I find it does not add anything to my day, other than negative energies. Nearly all news is bad news, and the American media tends to give us the news, in forms that play to biases and emotion. We get the daily Telegraph at my house, so if I am inspired to seek further news coverage on anything, it would be due to a newspaper article that caught my eye. So in my reflection on the speech, if I have missed anything worthy of further comments due to previous news coverage, I do apologize.
After taking the podium, someone yells out something to the effect of: ‘we love you Mr. President’, which was a little lame and JFK if you ask me, but whatever. “Well, you know I love you back”. Is thus the remark that the President ends up starting his speech with, like a rockstar to his fans, if you will. If leadership qualities and personal appeal were enough to successfully produce change in this Country, we might be in a different place today. As it is though, inspiration is all we can really hope to gain out of a Presidential speech, and call me inspired. President Obama actually shed tears of humanitarian empathy during the speech of Congressman John Lewis remembering the day of the march in Selma. He then took the stage and after thanking Mr. Lewis for the introduction, told us all that John Lewis has long been his hero.
“What they did here will reverberate through the ages. Not because the change they won was pre-ordained, not because their victory was complete, but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible. That love and hope can conquer hate.”
The President says he imagines that the young men and women marching on that day 50 years ago, could never have even believed the light at the end of the tunnel would look like it did, with a black President giving the speech. John Lewis had just explained to us that they walked two by two over the bridge on the SIDEWALK, not interfering with traffic or free-flowing commerce, and they were clubbed, and beaten, and some died. They were beaten but they stayed peaceful. President Obama speaks to the fact that the Selma marchers were not the first group to stand for that cause, and they wouldn't be the last, but stood they did. They succeeded.
“As we commemorate their achievement, we are well served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”
The President reminds us that the government, and our leaders, were the ones calling the shots and back then, they were doing it wrong. Nonviolent protestors were referred to as horrible names, like communists or outside agitators, to inspire misunderstanding and fear from those who were content with the status quo. I believe that President Obama, is hoping to remind us that without a little shake-up, things never get done. I also believe that he is really pressing the point that a shake-up does not have to be a national threat, in fact, it could be collective movement towards becoming a better America.
“What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America then plain and humble people; unsung, the down-trodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth of privilege, not of one religious tradition, but many, coming together to shape their Country’s course?”
He goes on to talk about how shaking up the status quo is why we can be the proud people we are today; how the work of the American experiment in self-government is never over. He asks us to realize that in order to continue to be the Nation we are so proud of, we must be a strong enough people to be able to self-criticize and adapt. In order to better align ourselves with the goals and good of the people, we must be willing to build upon, and change it when necessary.
“…loving this country requires more than singing its praises, or avoiding uncomfortable truths. It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo, that’s America! That’s what makes us unique. Thats what cements our reputation as a beacon of opportunity”
The President goes on to speak about how the Voting Rights Act was a direct response to the revolutionary spirit of the Civil Rights movement. It was that same spirit that led Woman to the poll, brought us to the moon, the best moves we have made as a people, for our people, have come of this spirit. He mentioned that in reality, it was the change that came from the peaceful movements for civil rights, that allowed the ‘south to rise again’, not by reverting to the past, but by ‘transcending it’. The actions of the generations of Americans before us who had to fight for civil rights, they gained them for us all and don't we owe them all quite a debt.
He says that one day’s celebration is never enough, that our work is never done, and that action requires us to shed our cynicism. He rejects the notion that nothing has changed in America though, and yes, rights-violations may still be a battle, but they are no longer sanctioned by law or customs. About Ferguson Missouri, and whether or not he thinks things have changed in America involving race? He ‘rejects’ that they have not. To say otherwise, would be irresponsible, it denies the progress we have made as an open and accepting society, he claims. He then also mentions however, that a graver mistake would be to act as though what is happening there, is an isolated incident, or that racism is banished. He presents these comments in a way that does not deflate the spirit, but provide it with a hunger for the solution.
“We are capable of bearing a great burden, James Baldwin once wrote, once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is. There is nothing America can’t handle if we actually look squarely at the problem. And this is work for all Americans, not just some.”
I loved that President Obama used this occasion to talk about the roots of a democracy-valuing society. He reminds Americans that in order to remain a land of the free, we must be a home of the brave. No, he never said anything like that, those are my words, but I think I was picking up what he was putting down. It is just an obvious situation to me, that one will always be less free by giving away their choices, to someone else. Even though taking the backseat is sometimes the more comfortable position to be in, you have willingly given away a part of your freedom, by letting someone else drive. This generation seems to want get by in their own lives and look away from the Country’s problems, and in my opinion, that is cowardly. I have just been wanting someone to point at American citizenry and say: “Oh, you don’t like it? Shut up,or put up. If you don’t at the very least vote, then what right do you have to say anything?” I didn't get that, but pretty close.
“If we want to honor the courage of those who marched that day, then all of us are called to possess their moral imagination. All of us will need to feel, as they did, the fierce urgency of NOW. All of us need to recognize, as they did, that change depends on OUR actions, on our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such an effort, no matter how hard it may sometimes seem, laws can be passed and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built.”
He points out that the ability to see things get done in favor of the public at large, is directly proportional to the amount of citizens that understand that it is their responsibility, to go out and get it. He really is trying to inflame the passions that people have for the issues they stand on, and then make them see the simplest solution: fulfilling the citizens end of the social contract of being an American and be apart of ‘we the people’. The back and forth, capital-prioritizing ‘politics as usual’, is simply the result of a lack of those willing to govern. When everyone who is being governed takes their hand off of the governing wheel, that steers our direction, they free up as much room as desired for people who want to be driving the ship. Those people are usually too focused on their placement on the wheel, that they lose touch with those riding the ship, that will feel direct effects of the steering.
That is not to say that we don’t have citizens who aren’t trying to govern, but are still activists for change, because we do. We also have citizens, who aren't even interested in politics, who still uphold a responsibility to vote in all elections. However, the amount of people that don't vote, has far more of an impact on our state of being, because it is a negative one. Without the people demanding what is better for the people, the result is less will always get done. How can the candidates, or bills, that are most in favor of fair distribution of wealth and services, be voted in, without the people that would benefit from it, voting for it?
“Of course, the work of our Democracy is not the work of the Congress alone, or the courts alone, or the President alone. If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.”
Our constitution is based on the idea that, what is good for America will be shaped by what is good for the public, how can we do or know what is good for the public if they don't vote? I was thrilled that President Obama decided to bring some harsh facts to light, because he was able to hold a mirror to reality of the American citizen complacency problem. He reminded us that while we have this history of great personal change and accomplishment, we are currently letting ourselves down in a very big way.
“Of course, the work of our Democracy is not the work of the Congress alone, or the courts alone, or the President alone. If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.”Tough love. That is what the presidential address on the bridge was. Gone are the days when the “rights of corporations” were not more important than ALL AMERICANS being participant and even aware that their President is addressing them, I could literally only find this on one CNN channel. These are the days when the biggest networks would rather keep you ignorant on the issues anyway, and if they give up regularly scheduled programming to allow you to be addressed by your President, they lose the money they’d make on commercial breaks. So while this speech has truly inspired me, I had been inspired anyway, and I tuned in to see it. I just hope that maybe enough you-tube clips will get a viewing, for a second-time around, to reach those who really need the reminding.
“What’s our excuse today for not voting? How do we so casually discard, the right, for which so many fought. How do we so fully give away our voice, our power, in shaping Americas future. Why are we pointing to somebody else when we could take the time just to go to the polling places? We GIVE AWAY our power.”
As a post script side note: I needed to watch this a second time around, and certain parts over and over, to transcribe my favorite parts into quotes for this post. So the transcription work has been done by me, and my obvious crediting of the content of the quotes, goes to President Obama. I have provided a link to the speech here. <--
“Thats what the young people here, and listening all across this nation, must take away from this day: You are America. Unconstrained by habit and convention, unencumbered by what IS, because you are ready to seize what OUGHT to be. For everywhere in this country there are first steps to be taken. Theres new ground to cover, there are more bridges to be crossed, and it is you, the young and fearless at heart, the most diverse and educated generation in our history who the Nation is waiting to follow. Because Selma shows us that, America is not the project of any one person. Because the single, most powerful word, in our democracy is the word “WE”. ‘We the people.’ ‘We shall overcome.’ ‘Yes, We can.’ That word is owned by no one, it belongs to everyone.”
The Role of Women Leadership in Global Politics
Over recent election years, Americans have created a pattern of imagining themselves experiencing the first Presidential term where a woman holds office. With the election and re-election of our first African-American President, this mindset was only enhanced even more. To many, a woman holding government office in the United States would not only show how far our country has come in achieving democracy, but as a world power we would stand as a symbol for the rest of the globe right?
Not necessarily...
Statistics actually show that more women leaders reside in countries that are considered to be "developing nations" as opposed to already developed. Maybe this is because the country still distributes power through a royal bloodline, or there were so many human rights violations by the government a woman-just like any man-felt it was her duty to bring respect for rights back to the state. Maybe the reason she ran had nothing to do with the oppression of women, but the unfair distribution of wealth in the economic system.
To be realistic, developing nations are very vulnerable when it comes to economic, social, and national security issues because they are still in the process of transition. This being said, there are a number of reasons why a women would be motivated to run for office. For example, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has made astounding accomplishments in rebuilding Liberia after years of brutal civil war. She has made achievements toward economic growth and social justice that opened the door for her to be able to tackle certain gender inequalities. After being elected, she negotiated significant debt relief, quadrupled the national budget, and opened a huge investigation on government corruption and crimes committed during the civil war. Certain efforts that Sirleaf made such as quadrupling the national budget, led to a 40% increase of female children attending schools in Liberia. The result of her actions led to more equality in social conditions for women.
So is a government necessarily proving they are more democratic by electing a female President? Although there is no doubt that a diverse group of candidates makes a more democratic election, it can be hard to connect obtaining a woman leader specifically to the status of democracy in the state she represents, without looking at her policies. It is typical to assume that women leaders will be more compassionate about civil and human rights considering that the status of gender politics has left women oppressed in many states in history and still today. It is hard not to relate gender equality to the reason these women run, but by looking at the economic status of their country in comparison to the party they represent, and other sociopolitical factors, one can see what these women fight for beyond gender politics.
Here is a link that has a brief description of each female President/Prime Minister around the world:
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm
Here is a link providing statistical facts and figures:
http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures
President of Liberia story:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/08/ellen-johnson-sirleaf-100-women
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)