August 2008 Archives

John McCain's unexpected pick of celebrity lookalike Sarah Palin for VP has been spinning heads for days. The move comes off at first as a blatant ploy to get disaffected female Clinton supporters after Obama snubbed her in his own veepstakes. Some no name first-term governor from the third-least populous state in the Union?

A second look reveals the more impressive facts about Palin. She left her post as Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest of the corruption she saw there within her own party. Her journey to the governorship included defeating the incumbent Republican in the primaries and defeating the former Democratic governor in the general election. She's campaigned against members of her own party because of their corruption. She's used her power to cut government waste.

(Of course, to be fair, she has no experience on a national level, and her dealings with Canada and Russia aren't the kind of foreign policy experience that voters are looking for.)

VP picks don't usually matter too much to voters, but Palin does affect the way Obama can run his campaign.

• They can't bully her.

Palin won't necessarily secure the roughly 50% of Hillary voters that aren't committed to Obama, but if either he or Joe Biden are perceived by that group as bullying Palin or attack her gender, whatever amount of unity created at the convention will dissolve. A lot of former Hillary supporters have qualms with perceived misogynism exhibited by what they consider the "prO-bama" press and the DNC. Obama's campaign would do wisely not to fuel the fire, even if it means occasionally walking on eggshells. 

• He can't count on the shallow vote.

Let's face it--some Americans vote based on which face they would prefer to see repeatedly on TV for the next four years. That thinking has been credited for the wins of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Before, Obama had that vote locked up. Women are more attracted to a fit man in his 40s than a fit-for-his-age man in his 70s.

But now the country has taken a look at Sarah Palin. And according to a Google search for "sexy Palin" yielding about 175,000 results, they like what they see.

• She takes the fire out of "change."

Obama began his campaign promising to bring the sort of change actually embodied in Palin. She's a Washington outsider who has led a movement for ethics reform and bipartisanship. Even now as Obama's change has morphed from anti-"old politics" to anti-Bush, his more-of-the-same charges don't stand against Palin. Her unflinching use of the veto to cut government spending stands in stark contrast to George W. Bush, whose greatest economic failure is his excessive spending.

*

When the pundits cite polls showing how few voters change their minds based on a VP nod, it doesn't mean the selection doesn't matter. The choice of Palin won't directly gain or lose a significant amount of voters for McCain, but the way Obama's campaign handles it can decide the election.

We've all heard the comparisons between John McCain and George W. Bush. "McBush." "McSame." "Bush 44." The list goes on. And despite key differences in opinion on government spending--McCain has vowed to veto all bills with earmarks--the senator's voting record in consistent alignment with the president makes the charge difficult to refute. (Besides, the short lifespan of campaign promises is no secret to voters.)

So if McCain will be Bush's third term, for which president does Barack Obama serve as a reincarnation? His supporters tend to point to JFK, citing the youth, the oratorical prowess and the ability to inspire with which both are credited. But those hoping for an Obama loss may suggest Jimmy Carter, whose perceived failures domestically and abroad led to an abysmal reelection attempt in which the incumbent only pocketed six states plus Washington, D.C. But another possible answer to this question, one most Americans should fear, would probably be mistaken by most for a compliment: the ill-revered Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The 32^nd president's legacy among historians and the public alike stretches beyond impressive; neither senator in this race dare even dream of earning posthumous accolades akin to those Roosevelt earned, ranging from his likeness on a US coin to a Gallup poll naming him the sixth most admired person from the 20^th century. He won four elections by vast electoral margins, never yielding even 100 electoral votes to his opposition.

And yet the late president is the man responsible for the prolonging of one of the most formidable tragedies ever to hit the nation. Worse than the Vietnam War, worse than 9-11 and perhaps even worse than the Civil War, Roosevelt's greatest accomplishment--not in terms of virtuosity but rather in scale and depth--is turning the spark of the 1929 market crash and ensuing economic crisis into the inferno of the Great Depression.

No, Roosevelt didn't "fix" the Depression. In continuing the interference-based policies of President Hoover, whom Roosevelt handily defeated in 1932, FDR fostered the Depression's ongoing existence for a decade. His administration's antics were numerous and nearly uncontested by his yes-Congress. For years, one man functionally made up two-thirds of the federal government.

Unfortunately, he ignored how the market works. Roosevelt's schemes included ordering reduced production to raise prices in banking and agriculture (under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933), giving the government the legal right to "confiscate"/steal privately owned gold (essentially a tax), a slew of regulations put in place by big businessmen hoping to squelch competition (under the National Industry Recovery Act of 1933) and a laundry list of other such acts.

Any serious student of the economy knows that nothing is healthier than high production, low taxes--keeping money in the people's pockets--and high competition. It should come as no surprise that, under policies in direct contradiction with the logical laissez-faire capitalism on which this country was founded, FDR managed to make a career out of "fixing" the economic crisis that he inherited, nurtured and grew.

So where does Obama fit in? Like Roosevelt did, he is poised to inherit an ailing economy. Like Roosevelt did, he is attempting to capitalize on voters' emptying pockets with promises of government handouts and redistribution of wealth (his $1,000 stimulus plan, his health care plan, his proposal for increased taxes on the rich).

And most gravely, like Roosevelt, his every response to economic disparity is more government interference. He wants to increase key taxes, most notably on capital gains, which will undoubtedly lead to significant decreases in investments--the worms hiding in that can are too numerous to count. He wants to enact a list of measures using the government's fist to give workers unfair advantages over their employers. He wants to enact measures stressing "fair trade" rather than free trade. Translation? Loads of economy-crippling government interference.

Come January, McCain or Obama may not be the next Bush or Roosevelt, respectively. But the stakes in this race are as high as ever. In the voting booth this fall, Americans need to know the severity of the threat and that not even our country, with its vast economy, is fully protected against another depression of untold proportions.

As I watch back the highlights of this year's Olympic gymnasts leaping through the air with such elegance that one begins to look skeptically for the support cables, I'm reminded of the latest tide of freshmen that crashed ashore our humble campus last weekend. These athletes have mastered what our newest classmates must all learn this year. For better or for worse, the key to surviving freshman year is: Balance.

In quantities that most new college students have yet to experience in their lives, they are met with a great freedom, and, in turn, faced with a daunting responsibility. They have the freedom to do what they want, when they want, with whom they want, free from worry of a parental veto. But with the veto goes the safety net. Freshmen must be credited with their failures along with their successes, academically and otherwise.

Balance is as new to many freshmen as they are to the YCP campus. This year, they'll be overwhelmed with choices. Spend extra money on food they actually like, or suck it up and use the meal plan that was already paid for? Go out on Friday nights and get the full "college experience," or work on that project due after the weekend? Relax whenever possible in their free time, or join multiple organizations to help boost their resume?

Freshmen must not let themselves get possessed by these false dilemmas; to do so is to assure failure. They don't have to choose A and forget B -- what they need to do is compromise, find the point of equilibrium between A and B.

They will make mistakes along the way. Sometimes, they will choose too much A and not enough B. Not all freshmen will win the gold, and fewer will earn a perfect 10.0 from the judges. But with their disappointments will come even more triumphs. Here's hoping they all stick the landing.

I'm a senior at York College, and I'll be working on the Morning After throughout the fall as part of my professional writing major. Although New Jersey was home for most of my life, I'm a permanent York County resident now. I get my values from my mother and my sarcasm from my father; I plan to make the best of both traits in my writing here in the coming months.

More importantly, my goal is to give college students a voice in the public forum. We're more than beer vacuums and bookworms, more than a demographic. We deserve to let our words represent us, rather than a surveyor's afterthought in exit polls.