Disclaimer: I am registered with neither the Democratic nor the Republican party, and I will not be voting for either of these parties' candidates in November. This is just my personal analysis of where the candidates stand in relation to one another now that they have officially been nominated.
Like many in California, I'm decidedly displeased with the results of Tuesday's primary gubernatorial election. The parties voted predictably (as usual), even if turnout was a record low for the Golden State. The lack of general public interest in the election and the lack of intelligence with which these people are running for office is making it difficult to decide who to pick in November, and while many are going to continue to stick to their party candidate, several are also watching and waiting to choose which candidate is the "lesser of two evils" and the best for California.
This poses a challenge for Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman: a challenge to really show the public their views on serious issues rather than marketing schemes and overwhelming television airtime (ahem, Whitman). The question is, are they up for this challenge? They sure are off to a bad start--head to any news site and you'll see hundreds of comments on Brown/Whitman articles complaining about how underqualified each candidate is. Those who remember the 70s are split on whether or not Brown did a good job, and debating whether or not he's simply too old for the position and his views too dated. The declining popularity of extreme conservatism and the skepticism surrounding Whitman's voting record, sketchy investments with Goldman Sachs, and her overall lack of policy experience make the Republican candidate a topic for complaint.
We know the candidates have a long way to go to gain our trust and, ultimately, the governorship, but how are they going to prove themselves to us? Jerry Brown proposed one method yesterday, throwing down the political gauntlet and challenging Whitman to a series of 10 town hall debates over the next 5 months, to which she replied that she would engage in no such debates until Brown lays out his plans for California on his website. While I think it's a bit silly to demand such web content, she does have a point. I checked out Brown's website and it's true that the format is a bit different from Whitman's, but what he has that she doesn't is a political resume to die for. Jerry Brown has cemented his views over a 40 year career, as Governor making California a global economic player as well as the nation's leader in greentech, and as Attorney General busting the bad guys, from gangs to major fraud, including the exposure of President Nixon's tax fraud debacle.
This first stalemate between the two candidates has many people asking questions. First, why doesn't Brown's campaign site contain comprehensive action plans like Whitman's? Second, why did Whitman really stand down from this challenge? And finally, can we even begin to define candidates by their online personas?
My speculations on these questions are as follows:
1) Brown, running unopposed in the primary, has been flying under the radar for the duration of the campaign thus far. This has already saved him millions of dollars while Whitman has been flushing her funds down the television toilet, but she still has a big financial advantage over him in the general election race. While I hate to admit that media exposure is a main factor of influence for voters, it's the truth, and Brown must be creative if he wants to stand up to the cash machine that is the Whitman campaign. Perhaps he's leaving details off of the web for a reason--the debate series he's proposed would generate a lot of media coverage, and he may be planning on using these events to unveil his plans. Building the anticipation of what he's going to say could make the debates a hot media topic and attract attention without any spending. In addition, Brown is expected to all but squash Whitman in an unscripted debate, also a plus when the cameras are rolling.
2) The primary election race has shown Meg Whitman to be great at pumping up her supporters with political one-liners and meticulously prepared talking points, but she has engaged in virtually no informal speaking engagements since she began her campaign. While this political faux pas has been overlooked so far by most Republican voters, public speaking becomes increasingly important in the general race. Voters expect their politicians to be master communicators, confident in their arguments and able to make and back up logical claims. Whitman's refusal to debate Brown, however conditional, is a red flag in my opinion. Brown even suggested that the topics for the debate be focused on Meg's three main talking points: job creation, spending, and education reform. For all the mention she has made of these topics in the past few months, she sure doesn't sound very comfortable talking about them with Brown. The fact that his views on the subject are not on his website is irrelevant--an aspiring politician should be prepared to back up his or her views regardless of what rebuttals are thrown their way. Unfortunately she doesn't seem to understand that debates work in this way. Whitman's strict avoidance of basic unscripted dialogue proves that she is faltering in regards to her knowledge of key issues, and many suspect it's because she's being fed talking points by her well-paid staff. This is not a good sign at all, and I'm not sure how she expects to redeem herself unless she develops some political talent.
3) Let's be real--the internet has made the world a crazy place to live. Information traveling worldwide at rapid speeds, advertisements targeted personally to you based on data collected by invisible agencies, and the overall explosion of 1st Amendment rights have characterized our era, and unfortunately, my generation. The good news is that we're smart; most of my peers and I have known how to conduct extensive online research on virtually any topic since age 12. The trends of internet use have also finally trickled up to the older generations, with many parents and grandparents stepping onto the social networking scene. People all over California are going to be checking, cross-checking, and double-checking every word that comes out during this campaign--it's simply in our nature to do so. Depending on what you're looking for, candidate websites may give you several answers to your questions, but in my opinion the only way to really understand a political candidate is by learning about his or her unique background and analyzing the arguments they make in person. The words and mannerisms a person uses to stand up for his or her beliefs are important insights into their talent as a politician.
Glad I got all this analysis off my chest. Let the games begin. I personally hope this battle gets ugly...makes things more interesting :) .
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Leave Obama alone!
Slate Magazine (6.2.10) - "The backward party."
http://www.slate.com/id/2255836/
In this era of partisan politics, the most prominent media figure is undoubtedly President Barack Obama. His first term has been interesting to say the least; he went from being revered as a pop-culture icon to drawing complaints from all over the political spectrum. Personally, I've been on the fence about Obama since the beginning, although I definitely would have voted for him over McCain in 2008 had I been of age. After reading this article, however, I have gained a new respect for our President and the way in which he handles his business. This piece also prompted me to think more philosophically about what the American presidency really stands for.
Obama's opponents are constantly ripping on his eloquent speaking style. They seem to think that he is trying to deceive us all with big words and fancy rhetoric. It seems to me that the people making these claims are making reference to their own ignorance; in listening to the President's speeches and reading articles like this one, I can only admire the composure and logic with which he expresses himself. He knows that his opponents trash-talk him in the media on a daily basis, he knows that people call him a Socialist, and he knows that people drive around with "NOBAMA!" bumper stickers on their cars, after only a year in office. All this disrespect and still he handles himself with tact, firmly yet calmly reminding opponents that their party legislators have been stubborn since before his inauguration and still refuse to compromise on many of his plans. People also seem to expect Obama to possess superhuman qualities, criticizing his response to the Gulf oil spill when he is obviously looking at the problem from every angle and trying to make the best decision for the US.
In addition, haters of Obama's healthcare plan should take a step back and collect themselves when it comes to their protest claims. Those who argue that Obamacare is a step toward Socialism in the US should think about the fact that our President compromised his original plan a great deal in order to accommodate current values, while still taking power away from cash-hungry insurance firms and reaching a helping hand out to lower- and middle- class families. For those who say the country never wanted this healthcare plan in the first place, it helps to think back to his campaign days, when that was his main focus. If people really opposed the plan that much, they would have been much less likely to vote for him in the first place.
It pains me to see how much negative energy is pumping through the mass media these days. Just when you think you've established yourself as an intellectually and morally sound politician, newspapers and TV start grabbing at every negative thing about you. The sad thing is, in this information age, nothing is off-limits--childhood stories, gossip, internet history, testimonies of college friends, sex life--even Obama's citizenship was questioned in the early days.
The bottom line is this: we can only have one President. The position has always come with a certain level of international respect, as well as local reverence in the name of patriotism. Now, our Constitution permits us to be as dissatisfied as we like with our government officials, even to express our ill feelings about them through a variety of media, but does that necessarily mean that we should? Many people go off on these politicians without stopping to really analyze their arguments. Often times people can only see the bad that a President has done, rather than recognizing positive developments of the current administration. For example, Obama just released a memorandum ordering federal agencies to extend fringe benefits to gay and lesbian employees. This measure, while small compared to the bigger civil rights issue at hand, is still groundbreaking and shows that Obama cares about extending American liberty to all groups regardless of social discrimination placed on them by everyone else--an extremely admirable action by our President in my opinion. Obama also announced in the beginning of his term that he would not continue to order federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and patients that were found to be in compliance with state law. For proponents of legalization, this has meant more opportunities for growth and acceptance within their communities.
My only hope is that someday Americans will learn to love the American presidency again, and that the media will learn to treat our current leader with as much tact as he has treated his opponents. I, for one, have come to respect Obama in spite of the bashing. He went into his first term bravely, facing a failing economy, an angry populus, and a controversial war effort. Through the hardships he has persevered and continues to work on issues that are important in our society. How much more can people really expect? He's only human, after all.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255836/
In this era of partisan politics, the most prominent media figure is undoubtedly President Barack Obama. His first term has been interesting to say the least; he went from being revered as a pop-culture icon to drawing complaints from all over the political spectrum. Personally, I've been on the fence about Obama since the beginning, although I definitely would have voted for him over McCain in 2008 had I been of age. After reading this article, however, I have gained a new respect for our President and the way in which he handles his business. This piece also prompted me to think more philosophically about what the American presidency really stands for.
Obama's opponents are constantly ripping on his eloquent speaking style. They seem to think that he is trying to deceive us all with big words and fancy rhetoric. It seems to me that the people making these claims are making reference to their own ignorance; in listening to the President's speeches and reading articles like this one, I can only admire the composure and logic with which he expresses himself. He knows that his opponents trash-talk him in the media on a daily basis, he knows that people call him a Socialist, and he knows that people drive around with "NOBAMA!" bumper stickers on their cars, after only a year in office. All this disrespect and still he handles himself with tact, firmly yet calmly reminding opponents that their party legislators have been stubborn since before his inauguration and still refuse to compromise on many of his plans. People also seem to expect Obama to possess superhuman qualities, criticizing his response to the Gulf oil spill when he is obviously looking at the problem from every angle and trying to make the best decision for the US.
In addition, haters of Obama's healthcare plan should take a step back and collect themselves when it comes to their protest claims. Those who argue that Obamacare is a step toward Socialism in the US should think about the fact that our President compromised his original plan a great deal in order to accommodate current values, while still taking power away from cash-hungry insurance firms and reaching a helping hand out to lower- and middle- class families. For those who say the country never wanted this healthcare plan in the first place, it helps to think back to his campaign days, when that was his main focus. If people really opposed the plan that much, they would have been much less likely to vote for him in the first place.
It pains me to see how much negative energy is pumping through the mass media these days. Just when you think you've established yourself as an intellectually and morally sound politician, newspapers and TV start grabbing at every negative thing about you. The sad thing is, in this information age, nothing is off-limits--childhood stories, gossip, internet history, testimonies of college friends, sex life--even Obama's citizenship was questioned in the early days.
The bottom line is this: we can only have one President. The position has always come with a certain level of international respect, as well as local reverence in the name of patriotism. Now, our Constitution permits us to be as dissatisfied as we like with our government officials, even to express our ill feelings about them through a variety of media, but does that necessarily mean that we should? Many people go off on these politicians without stopping to really analyze their arguments. Often times people can only see the bad that a President has done, rather than recognizing positive developments of the current administration. For example, Obama just released a memorandum ordering federal agencies to extend fringe benefits to gay and lesbian employees. This measure, while small compared to the bigger civil rights issue at hand, is still groundbreaking and shows that Obama cares about extending American liberty to all groups regardless of social discrimination placed on them by everyone else--an extremely admirable action by our President in my opinion. Obama also announced in the beginning of his term that he would not continue to order federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and patients that were found to be in compliance with state law. For proponents of legalization, this has meant more opportunities for growth and acceptance within their communities.
My only hope is that someday Americans will learn to love the American presidency again, and that the media will learn to treat our current leader with as much tact as he has treated his opponents. I, for one, have come to respect Obama in spite of the bashing. He went into his first term bravely, facing a failing economy, an angry populus, and a controversial war effort. Through the hardships he has persevered and continues to work on issues that are important in our society. How much more can people really expect? He's only human, after all.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Drawing the party line in the Millennial era
The Sacramento Bee (6.1.10) - "Little evidence in Washington that 'top 2' primary moderates politics"
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/01/2789318/little-evidence-in-washington.html
Proposition 14 is a June 8th California ballot measure that, if passed, will eliminate partisan restrictions on primary elections. The article above is a lame attempt by some analysts to apply the effects of Washington's newly implemented "open primary" system to California elections. Why would somebody even try to compare Washington state politics to California?! Obviously the effects of an election-type law are going to differ from state to state, especially when one state has a fraction of the other's population. California, in spite of its financial issues, is still a contender on the global economic scene. Voters, legislators, and politicians here are constantly on the cutting edge of political and economic decision-making. I'm not trying to sound arrogant here, I'm just trying to explain why I think this writer was comparing apples to oranges.
Here's why I think open primaries are a good idea for California, and maybe even most states. The truth is that the party lines are currently dissolving due to a general sense of dissatisfaction with the government. This isn't unusual--political parties often change their ideals and names as society progresses and certain issues become more or less relevant. Often times people forget that the parties have gone through several changes even in the relatively short timeline of American history--remember the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Whigs from high school history? Issues that the Democrats and Republicans have been battling over for years are simply becoming irrelevant, and no work is getting done because our old-fashioned partisan politicians are refusing to find new and innovative compromises. Recent scandals, media hype, and the recession have also been serious blows to voter morale, and many people are choosing to no longer affiliate themselves with either party.
This brings me to current election rules. For the primary gubernatorial election next Tuesday, each party will be allowing only their own registered members to vote for their own candidates (the Democratic party also allows registered Independents to vote). Someone like me, who has declined to register with a political party, will not be permitted to vote for any candidate until the general election in November, unless you request a ballot by mail directly from the party you wish to vote for.
After the voting takes place, there is one winner from the Republican party and one Democratic winner. That's basically it. While non-affiliated candidates usually have not had a good chance at winning in the past, is it really right to cut off any chances of them running in the general election? And what if two candidates from the same party could possibly be serious contenders in the race? Doesn't matter--only the finalist from each party may run in the general election. Our modified primary system simply does not allow for an underdog victory, and instead drives a wedge between the already floundering and overly regulated parties. Prop. 14 would result in one universal ballot for all registered voters, as well as ensure that the top two vote recipients in the primary election go on to be the general election candidates, regardless of party. It makes sense when you really think about it...why shouldn't the winners really be the winners?
Opponents of this measure are trying to say that it simply won't make a difference--that the candidate with the most money will win the election no matter what. I'm going to have to agree to disagree, on the grounds that I believe that is a complete insult to the intelligence of the Californian voter. Ad campaigns and media attention are a big help to those running for office, but the last time I checked, the vast majority of people identify more with a candidate's basic values than how many commercials they have on the air.
Prop. 14 is a good sign for young people because, if it passes, it will help California prepare for a truly bipartisan government in the future, if not multi-partisan. The Millennial generation already shows great potential to bridge party gaps on many controversial social issues, including gay rights, drug policy, and racial interests. The Millennials, I believe, will draw their own party lines years down the road, but until then, we need a "fair-and-square" voting system in which moderate and non-affiliated candidates will have a chance to change the way the government operates. The change will be eventual--California elections will probably still be Democrat vs. Republican for a number of years--but without Prop. 14, we might never get the chance at all. If we're electing the next executive for our state, I'd rather have a winner than a finalist, wouldn't you? This is another culture shock I can definitely get behind.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/01/2789318/little-evidence-in-washington.html
Proposition 14 is a June 8th California ballot measure that, if passed, will eliminate partisan restrictions on primary elections. The article above is a lame attempt by some analysts to apply the effects of Washington's newly implemented "open primary" system to California elections. Why would somebody even try to compare Washington state politics to California?! Obviously the effects of an election-type law are going to differ from state to state, especially when one state has a fraction of the other's population. California, in spite of its financial issues, is still a contender on the global economic scene. Voters, legislators, and politicians here are constantly on the cutting edge of political and economic decision-making. I'm not trying to sound arrogant here, I'm just trying to explain why I think this writer was comparing apples to oranges.
Here's why I think open primaries are a good idea for California, and maybe even most states. The truth is that the party lines are currently dissolving due to a general sense of dissatisfaction with the government. This isn't unusual--political parties often change their ideals and names as society progresses and certain issues become more or less relevant. Often times people forget that the parties have gone through several changes even in the relatively short timeline of American history--remember the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Whigs from high school history? Issues that the Democrats and Republicans have been battling over for years are simply becoming irrelevant, and no work is getting done because our old-fashioned partisan politicians are refusing to find new and innovative compromises. Recent scandals, media hype, and the recession have also been serious blows to voter morale, and many people are choosing to no longer affiliate themselves with either party.
This brings me to current election rules. For the primary gubernatorial election next Tuesday, each party will be allowing only their own registered members to vote for their own candidates (the Democratic party also allows registered Independents to vote). Someone like me, who has declined to register with a political party, will not be permitted to vote for any candidate until the general election in November, unless you request a ballot by mail directly from the party you wish to vote for.
After the voting takes place, there is one winner from the Republican party and one Democratic winner. That's basically it. While non-affiliated candidates usually have not had a good chance at winning in the past, is it really right to cut off any chances of them running in the general election? And what if two candidates from the same party could possibly be serious contenders in the race? Doesn't matter--only the finalist from each party may run in the general election. Our modified primary system simply does not allow for an underdog victory, and instead drives a wedge between the already floundering and overly regulated parties. Prop. 14 would result in one universal ballot for all registered voters, as well as ensure that the top two vote recipients in the primary election go on to be the general election candidates, regardless of party. It makes sense when you really think about it...why shouldn't the winners really be the winners?
Opponents of this measure are trying to say that it simply won't make a difference--that the candidate with the most money will win the election no matter what. I'm going to have to agree to disagree, on the grounds that I believe that is a complete insult to the intelligence of the Californian voter. Ad campaigns and media attention are a big help to those running for office, but the last time I checked, the vast majority of people identify more with a candidate's basic values than how many commercials they have on the air.
Prop. 14 is a good sign for young people because, if it passes, it will help California prepare for a truly bipartisan government in the future, if not multi-partisan. The Millennial generation already shows great potential to bridge party gaps on many controversial social issues, including gay rights, drug policy, and racial interests. The Millennials, I believe, will draw their own party lines years down the road, but until then, we need a "fair-and-square" voting system in which moderate and non-affiliated candidates will have a chance to change the way the government operates. The change will be eventual--California elections will probably still be Democrat vs. Republican for a number of years--but without Prop. 14, we might never get the chance at all. If we're electing the next executive for our state, I'd rather have a winner than a finalist, wouldn't you? This is another culture shock I can definitely get behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)