Youth Politics

Most everyone has the same overarching goal for this country: to be a free nation which prospers and protects all of its citizens so that everyone can lead fulfilling, productive lives while at the same time being at peace with the rest of the world. That’s what most politicians in the government want. But is this how the government is portrayed? No. Not in the slightest. Everyone’s at each other’s throats, Democrats and Republicans seemingly hate each other. No, actually they do hate each other.

So why all of this hatred? Politics touches everyone emotionally. People become extremely passionate towards their cause, so when someone else enters the scene with a different point of view, you start to see annoyance. Annoyance turns to anger, eventually. But Americans all get along you say. Yes, outside of politics some Americans do get along with each other. Let’s face it though, the political scene is a mess, and who do we have to blame for this? For one, the media. Anger draws people to continue watching and boosts ratings. Manipulating the emotions of the public is a fantastic way to draw attention to yourself. How many times have you heard a news report and then went, “why are they reporting this? This isn’t news.” Well, it’s because it’s bound to make someone angry, or at the very least add fuel to the fire.

The second major reason for all of the hatred is that the country seems to have painted itself a big white divider line in between the two major political parties. You either belong to one side or the other. Being an independent simply means you’re on one side of the line one day, and then on the other side of the line the next. Where did this line come from? It started all the way back before the end of the 18th century with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. And we haven’t been able to erase this line since. It was after all none other than George Washington to warned us about the dangers of political parties.

Can anything be done about all of this anger and hatred towards either side? I don’t see how. The government itself would have to take charge in this matter, but that’s where all of the problems lie. Don’t count on the media to do such a thing, they need ratings. Can the people possibly undo this damage. Yes, I believe so, with time. Right now things are too heated for anyone to care of course, or to even try. The mindset of America cannot change overnight, however I do believe that one day America will have to change the way it handles politics, or the people are going to become increasingly tired of the system. I’m all for free speech, and I’m all for having multiple points of view be prevalent in society. But isn’t there a better way to approach our political differences?

This is of course a no brainer. They don’t lie all the time, and I’ll go out of my way to say that they are telling the truth most of the time, whether it’s given an opinionated twist or not. The problem arises when the media makes a mistake, and it’s these kinds of mistakes that people need to watch out for. Remember the memo forgery dilemma to discredit President Bush? It things like that which bias the public in an unfair manner, and it’s indirectly hurtful to the candidates. The media blunder I’ve seen reported recently isn’t nearly so damning, but it does question CNN as an unbiased news source. You can read more about the incident here.

For most of you this is obvious, but it brings up an important point: You cannot rely on only one source for all of your information! When people become emotionally attached to a specific point of view, it’s going to be hard to break out of the habit of recognizing other views. This can be harmful, as it essentially closes your mind off from other possibilities. I don’t mean okay, I’ll just start watching Fox if I haven’t been already, or I’ll start watching CNN. This doesn’t concern just TV media. This means that on the Internet, where there is a plethora of information, you should try to dig for articles and posts from opposing view points. Try to see as many angles as possible. When reading one article, before wholeheartedly agreeing with the content, find the opposing view point first. Then make up your mind. It doesn’t hurt to mix it up either. Sometimes, read what you feel is the opposing view point first, and then the view point you feel may be closer to your own feelings.

Another approach to this is to become a critic. Simply do not believe any sources at all until you have established undeniable evidence of the truth. The approach works, but I’m not a big fan of it. First of all it requires a significant amount of work just to prove even the smallest idea. Second of all, it takes too much time to verify everything you hear. So much time in fact, that you end up doing nothing but verification and not enough thinking about how you feel and not developing your own position on the matter. This is all besides the fact that critics seem like negative Nancys to me. My opinion of course, and you’re welcome to argue this point with me.

The media is not above anyone else. Everyone in the media is human, and humans may make mistakes. A ridiculous claim by the media must not go unanswered, and it is your imperative to question the source. Going on the Internet and retrieving information from various sources will help to insure that you know the facts, the opinions, the commentary, and this in turn will help you best develop your own tool set of arguments on the topic.

Here is the continuation of my series: Three Reasons Why. I couldn’t stick to only the Democrats and the Republicans. That would be inherently unfair. So now I present to you the three reasons why the Green Party is wrong. Now I realize support of the Green Party is largely outweighed by the top two parties in this nation, and that most people really wouldn’t care about this topic. But honestly who has done their research? Yes the Green Party is environmentally conscious, but that’s not all they’re about. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you actually agreed with most of their policies (in which case the Green Party would be a better choice). Nonetheless, here are three of their fallacies in their arguments.

1. Affirmative action is discrimination

Affirmative action is not backwards discrimination. It is discrimination. It’s the belief that those who are not white are disadvantaged from the beginning. Thus, out of pity, those other races need to be given extra help and special considerations with jobs, schooling, government benefits, etc. While the outcome of this is essentially good, the ends cannot justify the means. If China for example (and this is an extreme example) killed off half of its citizens, it would greatly reduce the population, reducing pollution and energy consumption and thus would be a great benefit to the world. But is a government killing off its people the right thing to do? No. It’s not. Is belittling other races by saying they inherently need extra help good? No. It’s not. When this country stops caring about race by getting rid of the box which has you choose which race you are, only then is this country going to start becoming more of the melting pot it wishes it were with everyone getting along. I understand they need that race box on tests and legal forms because they need to keep track of demographics, but honestly, there are other solutions to the inequalities of today than affirmative action.

2. Free Trade is good for the world

The Green Party seeks to end the free trade agreements the US currently has such as NAFTA. This is a mistake, and an economic one at that. Free trade does not benefit solely the corporations and big business. It doesn’t even only support the government. It helps everyone, and here’s why. Let’s say the United States puts 40% of its resources into collecting oil, and is able to produce (and these numbers are in no way realistic) two billion barrels of oil per year. Let’s also say that with that same 40%, the US can produce 300 million units of bread. Again these are just examples. Now let’s take another country like Venezuela. Let’s say that with 40% of its resources it can produce five billion barrels of oil per year, and that with the same 40%, it can only produce 100 million units of bread. The solution here that would benefit both countries is simple: the US should move that 40% into bread production and Venezuela should put its 40% into producing oil. Then, each country could specialize in their good and trade it without tariffs. The savings would be passed on to consumers, and each country is producing what they do best at optimal levels. Arguments against this thinking is that it hurts domestic producers. This is only true because free trade does not exist everywhere in the world. There are still other countries which put tariffs on our goods, and that hurts our domestic producers more than anything because it’s harder to export our goods. Nonetheless, if the consumer can save more money and feel wealthier, they’ll be more inclined to spend. Consumer spending is good for the economy, and thus free trade is the economically correct course of action. This has the added benefit of also being good for the other countries as well, and as a result, the world becomes better off. That seems like a good thing to me.

3. Legalization of marijuana is unnecessary

The War on Drugs is caused by the black market when it comes to drugs. Drug selling can be extremely profitable and does cause quite a mess in many communities. The legalization of marijuana would stop this war by moving the drug into the regular market and thus lower its prices and introducing greater competition from legal establishments. But I still don’t understand how that can happen. People will just switch to a different drug! The only way to stop the War on Drugs would be then to legalize all drugs. And that simply cannot happen.

Legalizing marijuana would allow people to smoke it casually. Even moreso than people do now. Marijuana brings happiness to many people who do smoke it, and being able to get happy anytime with no legal risks can have consequences in today’s society. Children will be able to more readily have access to the drug. Yes, age requirements could be placed, but as with smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, it’s not going to prevent much. Legalizing such substances sets a poor example to future generations by subtly giving the message that taking such drugs is okay. Look at the tobacco industry. More and more the government is trying to raise awareness about the dangers. But it’s far too late. People continue to smoke, and although the number of people smoking has fallen, cigarette smoking is still plentiful. Let’s not even forget that tobacco doesn’t produce nearly the same amount of “happiness” and “relaxation” as marijuana. A part of me wants to say, yes, do it, as the government can’t be telling people how to live their lives. However, the government does have a responsibility to take care of us and protect us from ourselves if necessary.

As always, I’ll take questions through comments and by email: crowtche@juniorpolitics.com

Let’s face it, when we have a near 100% Democrat-controlled government (Executive and legislative branches, and in some cases the judicial branch), the party steps out of bounds and starts to pass legislation too easily. The system of checks and balances work sub-optimally. The same is true when we have a near 100% Republican-controlled government. But how about when the legislative branch and the executive branch are divided? Both party’s views are so different, that people begin to blame the government for not doing anything at all. The system becomes gridlocked. Over and over do I hear of bills getting shot down. Reason being: the other side didn’t like the plan for how to pay for the plan, even if everyone agrees it’s what the country needs. If we can’t have a system where one party rules all, and we can’t have a system where both sides coexist, then what is the point of these two parties?

The answer is none. Even amongst themselves both parties have people who support different causes or even have different opinions. Look at the Democratic party. It’s a mess. There is a different group of people in that party for just about any real political concern. And some of these people even conflict with each other! Let’s take social equality as an extreme example. There are those who advocate for affirmative action, and then there’s the people who want society to treat everyone equally. These two things can’t both possibly exist at the same time! They’re at odds with each other! The party has become a conglomerate  of different beliefs and values, why have the party at all?

The Republican party is not as big a mess, however even the more moderate Republicans fear the far right. The religious, conservative base is not necessarily in it for the same reasons as say, the economic conservatives. They are fighting for completely different topics. I suppose a party can stand for more than one thing, but isn’t it entirely possible to have a religious conservative who’s an economic liberal? Most definitely. Where does that guy belong?

I cannot be convinced that there is one dominating view above all else. I cannot be convinced that most people who are religious conservatives are also economic conservatives, and vice-versa. Perhaps there should be four parties? Wait, there’s even more than that!

Now that I think about it, having all of these splinter groups is pointless as well. What, do we now have to have a different party for every single set of beliefs possible? That’s unfeasible. These parties are just tiring me… it’s nothing but attack ads, negative ads, and slinging words at each other these days. I flipped by Bill O’ Reilly’s radio show for a split second, and all I heard was an earlier recording of someone speaking, and then Bill O’ Reilly claiming that the guy was an idiot. Is that what politics has become these days?

Peru has more than twenty different candidates run in a typical presidential election. Some of these candidates of course are more popular than others, but in the end all of Peru selects between all of these different candidates, and then the top three go on to the runoffs. Each of these candidates brings something different onto the table. It establishes that there aren’t solely two different philosophies. People have a greater variety to choose from, and thus granting them the ability to elect someone who represents more of the values they want. All the time I hear people saying that voting in America’s elections is like “choosing the lesser of two evils.” Well if that’s the case then maybe something needs to change? Maybe we need to reconsider the way America works. We’re leaders of the world today, but that wont be true forever if we don’t shape up and adapt to a world that seems to be closing the gap between us and them every single day.

I’m in no way suggesting that I actually belong to a party by posting my previous entry, Three Reasons Why Republicans Are Wrong. Democrats have their flaws too, even though I do tend to lean liberally.

1. You can’t selectively help people

Look, we all want to help the poor. But we don’t want to help the poor that are in that condition by choice. I mean yea, get some proper help for the drug addicts, but we cant honestly be giving money back into the pockets of people who will simply use it for more drugs now can we? By putting money back into the pockets of the lower classes, you do so unbiasedly. There needs to be organized ways of redistributing the money, or at least provide other ways of helping people out. For example, food stamps only work for food, so that at least limits its use for drugs (sure you could trade a food stamp for drugs, but that’s a stretch). Take money out of the top 1% and putting it into say, the organizing of more hospitals, shelters, food kitchens, and better charities would seems like a step in the right direction, one that Republicans cant argue with too much.

2. Going to war with Iraq

But the CIA told us they have WMD’s… that’s just an excuse. All human beings have the ability to interpret information given and make their own judgment calls. I, from the very beginning, never thought Iraq had any weapons at all. There was simply no proof, and by the way, telling the world to stop looking through your country does not suggest you have weapons. If North Korea wanted to inspect our country, would we let them? I’m going to guess no. Oh and by the way, why wouldn’t Iraq simply have used these weapons when we threatened them? They knew they couldn’t win a war against us. Could it be that they did not have any such weapons? Most likely. Look, winning the public’s opinion and going with the public’s opinion is okay, but sometimes the government needs to protect its citizens from themselves. This was a good spot for Democrats to say no, we’re not going to do this, and at least then maybe we may not have gone to war. Now of course Democrats blame Republicans for the war… but Democrats are not shameless themselves, at least not their politicians.

3. Affirmative action makes no sense

If the government really wants to put racial inequality to an end, at least on its part, it needs to stop allowing affirmative action to take place. This is saying that those of minority races need to be boosted up so they can compete with white Americans. This basically says that those who are not white are not good enough and need leverage. This is absurd. I’m Hispanic myself. I do not need affirmative action to help me through life (although it is incredibly advantageous). I’m intelligent enough to outwit people and compete for job positions, college, etc. without the need for this kind of help. Affirmative action is not an apology for racial crimes, it’s actually more like admitting whites are better yet again, but then putting a positive spin on the outcome of that determination. Democrats need to stop supporting this ridiculous policy if they truly want to become champions of social equality.

Any Democrats feel I’m being unreasonable, unfair, or am I outright wrong? Let me know via comments or email at crowtche@juniorpolitics.com.