Boy... That escalated quickly.

          Last week I talked about the post election bitterness from high profile individuals, namely Donald Trump. President Obama's re-election triggered responses from several other celebrities, as a product of social media, and perhaps is illustration of how social media is a factor of how the country has become divided. It appears, however, that social media responses, from high to low profile individuals, are not the only expression of discontent with the election results. More than 100,000 Americans have resorted to another form of protest, and are actively aiming to achieve one goal; secession.

          In her article, published by New York Daily News, Kristin A. Lee reports that more than 100,000 Americans, in more than 20 states, have signed a petition for their respective states to secede from the United States. The petition set in Georgia has even gone as far as invoking civil war, while another argues that "voter fraud has been committed" (Lee, 2012). The petitioners used the federal government's "We the People" website to gain the attention of the Obama administration. Lee describes that the petitions only require 25,000 signatures in order to gain a response from the federal government; and while the many of the petitions have exceeded that number, this initiative's impact exceeds nothing more than an expression of discontent.

          Having surpassed the 25,000 signature threshold, the petitions are entitled to a response from the federal government; however, a response does not encompass the necessity of any form of action. Technically, a press conference held by the president simply stating "too bad", is considered a response. Petitions are not legally binding; therefore, there is no requirement of any action to be taken. Although the overall number of signatures is constantly raising, which is currently nearing the 500,000 mark (, that number is still considered minuscule and do not warrant any restructuring of the of nation's political system. Lee notes that many of these petitions use the same passage from the constitution, ""Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government." (Lee, 2012).

          To my perspective, this passage entitles the right to a revolution if the government harms the form of government, which is the democratic system. An abolishing of the government would be justified if the election victory meant that the president held power despite losing the election.  Furthermore, my question is; how has this election become destructive towards the integrity of the democratic system? Obama and the Democrat party won this election the same way that elections have been won in previous years, and also achieved the popular vote.What entitles these constituents to such a radical restructuring of the political system? Aside from turning this initiative over as a radical right wing over-reaction, it drew my attention to another perspective.

         With the negativity surrounding the election results, perhaps there is not enough emphasis placed upon the House of Representatives and Senate. Although Obama will lead the country for another four years, the Republican party continues to dominate the House of Representatives, while the senate is virtually split even. Not only are these reactions over-reactive, but they overlook the bicameral structure of the country's legislature. The Republican members, unsurprisingly, will tend to their Republican constituents, which will maintain the challenges Obama is faced with in decision making. When looking back to other acts, such as DREAM of the Paycheck Fairness (the list can go on), many of these leftist acts which seem to be increasingly feared by Republican supporters, have failed to pass. The reaction to invoke secession seems to stir the impression that Obama has become an absolute dictator, but there is no doubt that the president will continue to face tough challenges ahead, especially with the "fiscal cliff" looming the near future. Obama may have retained the leadership role, but his ability to impose his entire plan upon the government is far from guaranteed.

References

Lee, Kristin A. 2012. "After President Obama's election victory, surge in petitions to secede from United States - including one for New York State". The New York Daily Times. web.

Trump, Twitter, and Hate.

            After a seemingly endless campaign for both sides, Obama’s victory on Tuesday night to withhold his presidency for another four years was a massive relief for democrats. For many voters and spectators, another sense of relief came in hopes that the most negative campaign battle in history has come to an end; no more mud-slinging attack ads, and no more viral negativity throughout the internet. At least that’s what I was thinking until Donald Trump took to twitter to announce his discontent with Obama’s election victory [along with others such as Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rover, and Ted Nugent]. Discontent, however, may be a euphemism. Outrage may be a more appropriate description of his expression towards the results. It appears, at least for another day, that although the race is over, the negativity of the campaigns is still ringing throughout social media and can’t seem to find its way out of the internet; and Donald Trump’s hair.

            Shortly after his tirade on twitter, the billionaire real estate mogul salvaged whatever logic he had left in his perception to the public eye and deleted his twitter posts. But the most haunting consequence of the internet, and social media, is that once something is posted, it will be permanently recorded somewhere in the darkest recesses of the internet. Trump’s twitter posts, however, did not require a thorough search through the archives, as various news networks immediately reported his comments. Trump expressed his perceived displeasure with the nation’s democratic system by stating, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy”, and with a follow-up comment describing “more votes equals a loss...revolution” (Wing, 2012). Clearly, Trump was not aware that Obama had actually won the popular vote; it was only all over the election’s news coverage. The revolutionary talk did not stop there as Trump continued to urge his twitter followers to “march on Washington and stop this travesty” (McIntyre, 2012). 

            This post election mud-slinging is a sound reflection of what this campaign battle mainly consisted of. The negativity of the advertisements, whether they were on the television, public areas, or the internet, voters and spectators could not ignore the inescapable attack ads all over the media. The spike in negativity, in my perspective, is a product of the increasing inclusion of social media in the campaigns. In a broad sense, you could even speak of Obama’s campaign and social media almost synonymously. Although the presidential race four years ago was no stranger to its share of internet use, social media has certainly expanded even more throughout these past years. As opposed to a decade ago, the internet has become an extremely prominent field for campaign material and attack ads. Videos from both President Obama and Governor Romney’s campaigns went viral, most notably the “47% video” of Mitt Romney. While the internet provides an accessible source of media to the far majority of the population, releasing videos in the favor of a campaign to the mass public is no longer a challenge. As opposed to bidding for the appropriate commercial air times on the right television networks and hoping the viewership will be high, the viral videos are essentially accessible at any time. To put it bluntly, the increase of internet access and social media has made it easier to spread negativity.

In regards to Trump’s situation with twitter, it highlights the access of an instant handheld press release, whereas a decade ago, Trump would’ve had to make his comments to a reporter, interviewer, or set up a press conference. In my perspective, the time and effort it would’ve taken to release his statements to the public a decade ago, the billionaire entrepreneur likely would have had the chance to think twice before he made those statements, or at least re-word them; however, having access to a high profile press release at the palm of his hands probably provided temptation, and most importantly, the ability to quickly express his outrage. The keyword I would use to describe the effect that social media, and the internet, has had on this presidential race is vulnerability. It made Romney’s statements of the 47% of the American population viral, it made Obama’s campaign’s twitter account a continuing news feed of attacks on Romney; and as Trump’s twitter tirade on Tuesday reminded me, it provided the field for citizens to join the campaigns of negativity.

Clearly, the country is divided, and perhaps that is an equal factor contributing to the animosity between to the two parties during this election race. Another perspective we could argue is that the increasing use of social media, like I’ve explained above, has actually contributed to the factor of the country dividing. Perhaps the division of the country and social media should not be thought of as parallel factors behind this race, but as synonymous factors behind the negativity. The interesting question to look forward to is whether the continuing growth of social media will further enhance the negativity and animosity in the next presidential race in 2016.

References

Kingsly, Patrick. 2012. "Donald Trump and Karl Rove lead calls for revolution". The Guardian. web.

McIntyre, Marina. 2012. "Donald Trump launches Twitter tirade over Barack Obama's victory". The Guardian. web.

Wing, Nick. 2012. "Donald Trump: Election Is 'Total Sham And A Travesty,' Suggests 'Revolution' Is Necessary". The Huffington Post. web.

Withdrawal in 2014?

One of the most consistent issues surrounding the presidential campaigns has been the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. After 11 years, the general consensus is that the time has come for American troops to leave the war-ridden country. Obama’s initiative has been stated consistently throughout his campaign, and that is the promise that he would bring troops home in 2014. In the final presidential debate, Romney made it clear that he was fully behind the 2014 deadline; however, he reiterated that he would consult with ground commanders before completing the withdrawal. The governor’s statement, without much surprise, was quite vague and did not encompass the full extent of possibilities with seeking advice from ground commanders before withdrawal.

On her “CNN Fact Check” article, Jennifer Rizzo of CNN fully articulated Romney’s stance on the 2014 deadline. Rizzo begins by refuting Obama’s claim that Romney has changed sides regarding the withdrawal by stating that Romney began his support for the 2014 deadline as early as last year. What is interesting to note though, is that Romney has always responded with a caveat in which he said that he would consult with commanders on the field before giving a green light for a withdrawal. Rizzo explained this notion to leave the possibility of leaving troops in Afghanistan if needed. Although Obama’s strategy is to leave 10,000 to 15,000 troops behind following the withdrawal, Romney’s assertion does not leave a clear number. Rizzo concluded the article by explaining Romney’s disagreement with Obama was aimed towards the announcement of the deadline, stating that “the Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars”.

The full explanation of Romney’s caveat, however, was adequately provided during the vice presidential debate by the governor’s running mate, Paul Ryan. Paul explained that announcing a date of an unconditional withdrawal will give the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations operating in the region, incentive to simply wait out the remaining two years. Congressman Ryan also elaborated on the initiative to consult with ground commanders before the withdrawal; thus, the Romney-Ryan ticket’s plan for Afghanistan has been solid and consistent. The content of their plan, however, is as good as anyone’s guess.

What I mean by the content of their strategy pertains to the decisions made following the advice of ground troops. The more I’ve read that statement, the more I’ve slipped under the impression that it leaves the door open to just about anything. Essentially, it leaves the door open to the possibility of cancelling a withdrawal in 2014, and it also clarifies that although Romney agrees with the 2014 deadline, he hasn’t promised it like President Obama has. The reason behind this analysis is that there is still a growing concern over the volatility of the country, and that there are still plenty of incentives to leave a significant military presence there.

The suicide bombing on Friday (October 26^th) in Maymana was a reminder of the lingering, yet prominent reasons that some may believe is enough to extend the military presence in the country further than 2014. Despite both Obama and Romney agreeing that there has been relevant success in Afghanistan, Paul Ryan insisted that there was still a lack of American troops in the Eastern region of the country during the vice presidential debate. With these statements, the Romney-Ryan ticket appears to have strong awareness of these incentives to stay in Afghanistan, especially with the notion of applying more pressure in Eastern Afghanistan.

The possibility of leaving a military presence in Afghanistan relates to another hot topic in foreign policy, which is the nuclear proliferation of Iran. Romney has consistently asserted that Obama has portrayed weakness in the face of the situation. The connection which seems to be overlooked is that having a strong military presence in Afghanistan (especially in the Eastern region) is strategically crucial regarding the situation with Iran. With the existing military bases along the Western coast of Iran (ie. United Arab Emirates, Kuwait), leaving troops in Afghanistan situates the American forces at every doorstep of Iran. Essentially, extending the stay in Afghanistan will mean the American forces will have Iran surrounded for that much longer. This type of geographical strategy matches Romney’s attitude towards the situation with Iran by making a hypothetical strike attainable to any region of the country within minutes. Is it possible that Romney is keeping the possibility of a deadline extension to see how the situation with Iran unfolds? Again, the content of their plan, after the “advice of ground commanders”, is anyone’s guess.

In opposition to Romney’s plan, Obama’s deadline for 2014 is promised and unconditional. With the president, there is a certainty with what America and its troops abroad will get. Although I do not doubt that Romney believes a 2014 deadline is appropriate, like he has consistently stated, it is useful to consider the possibilities of his caveat.

References

Rizzo, Jennifer. 2012.  "CNN Fact Check: Romney against 2014 deadline in Afghanistan before he was for it". CNN. web.

The Vice Presidential Debate and its Lingering Questions

          On the first presidential debate, the general consensus has been the lack of aggression and authority in President Obama’s presentation. While Governor Romney demanded more speaking time, manhandling the mediator in the meantime, it seemed as if Obama was looking to execute a counter-attack that never happened. The lack of character in the debate arguable left a void in the Obama’s campaign. Last Thursday’s vice presidential debate, in my opinion, provided an opportunity for Vice President Joe Biden to compensate for the lack of aggression and alpha presence that Obama lacked for the Democratic party; and ultimately, Biden did in fact project an increasingly aggressive presence in the debate, much like Romney did. On top of that, Biden inherited what appeared to be Obama’s strategy, by looking to counter-attack Congressman Paul Ryan’s criticisms of the Democrat policies. What made the vice presidential debate a success for the Obama-Biden ticket, was Biden’s aggressiveness which allowed him to clearly convey facts and statements in order to counter Ryan’s criticisms.

 

          By emphasizing his experience, some as far back as Reagan era, Biden was able to establish his veteran presence and conveyed his responses in a methodic approach by numbering his arguments. On the other end, Paul Ryan addressed the audience and mediator with his youthful charisma; however, at many times, seemed like he was over-acting. If I need to elaborate on the term “over-acting”, it seemed as if he was trying too hard, like a D-list actor auditioning for an A-list role. Biden’s presentation was perfect either, as the congressman at one point stated [after a persistent interruption from Biden], “…I understand you’re under a lot of duress to cover lost ground”.  

          In my perception, Biden’s success over this debate came from several instances where he was able to respond to Ryan’s main criticisms with counter-statements, which the congressman could not respond to. The first which instance which stood out came from Biden’s response to Ryan’s very set of statements regarding the lack of embassy protection. In regards to the Libya attacks on the American embassy members, Ryan indicated to the lack of protection the Obama administration gave to the embassy; however, Biden immediately responded by identifying the $300 million cut on embassy protection under Ryan’s proposed budget.

          In regards to the threat of Iran’s nuclear proliferation, Ryan was quick to note that Iran is much closer now to acquiring nuclear warheads than they were before the Obama administration; however, again Biden responded by identifying that until Iran acquires a weaponry body to place the enriched uranium in, they are far from building an actual warhead. On top of Ryan’s inability to disprove Biden’s explanation of warhead construction, the vice president contributed to one of the most interesting factors following this debate, which are the lingering questions that remain unanswered. “What more can the president do?” To clearly elaborate on this question which Biden directly asked the mediator and Ryan, what more could the president do to freeze Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities that is short of going to war? This question basically won this topic for Biden. Even though the current sanctions have not led to any stoppage of nuclear enrichment in Iran, he placed the burden of answering the question on Ryan; in which his inability to do so led to the perception of the congressman’s inadequacy in regards to handling this subject.

          Another instance of Biden’s counter responses was following his own speech on the success of the 2008 bailouts of the automobile industry. Ryan followed the vice president’s statements by highlighting the slow economic growth of the decision to do so. This response by Ryan was successful in reveling that the bailout was not actually as successful in its own terms since the economy has only been growing by 1%, rather than the projected 4% that was married to the promotion of the bailout decision. Biden, however, came back by explaining that Ryan actually sent him a letter asking for a stimulus package, similar to the bailout, and quoted the congressman’s own words explaining that it would “stimulate economic growth”. Although this letter was just a small blip in Ryan’s commitments, Biden’s counter-response painted a contradiction in sole premise of Ryan’s statements, which discredited the congressman for much of the economic section of the debate.

          Amongst all the complex details regarding the tax section of the debate, the premise is quite simple, and that is the competition in ideologies. Both the vice president and the congressman presented numbers and statistics provided by numerous studies by numerous associations titled with acronyms which, in fast speech, will fly right over the audience’s head. What stuck was simply the competition between the Obama-Biden ticket’s quest for lower middle-class tax rates and higher upper-class tax rates, versus the Romney-Ryan ticket’s higher middle-class taxes, but lower tax rates for higher income individuals who create employment opportunities within the country. However, Biden turned this ideological debate to his favor by asking the congressman where they would find $5 trillion in loopholes to finance tax reliefs for both the middle class and the higher income individuals [as Ryan claimed]. Paul Ryan simply could not answer with specifics, which turned this otherwise evenly matched competition of ideologies slightly into Biden’s favor.

          In regards to the situation in Syria, Paul Ryan insisted that the foreign policy should not have been outsourced through the United Nations, which Russia the power to veto any decisions to intervene in Syria, and concluded that it decreased the trust that their allies had for them. Biden quickly responded, although again with his aggressive and interrupting behavior, that 49 of their allies had actually agreed on their decision to outsource through the UN. But the most interesting part of this section of the debate was the question provoked by the discussion between Biden and Paul. Without retrieving UN approval for an intervention, wouldn’t any action taken by the US government in Syria be mirrored by the criticism and negativity surrounding the Iraq invasion in 2003? Because this is the stance of the Romney-Ryan ticket, the lack of an answer [in my perception] left a void in Paul Ryan’s argument.

Is Obama's new normal good or bad?

          At this point in the election, Obama's projection as the favourite by a majority of speculators is clearly fortunate news for the Democratic Party. Ross Douthat, of the New York Times, however, characterizes Obama's lead within a certain demographic to be alarming. In his article, "Why Obama is Winning", Douthat associates Obama's lead with the economically struggling demographic, which of course, is not what he describes as alarming. It is the "new normal", which Douthat explains as "a dreadfully slow growth". As Douthat elaborates on this description, he states, "these signs of resignation are good news for the White House, but they’re bad news for the country’s future. Even if a rich nation like ours can learn to live with 8 percent unemployment and slow growth for now, the costs of persistent joblessness and sustained stagnation could be devastating in the long run". While Douthat cozies to this idea early in the article, he proceeds to identify it as a mindset that is detrimental to the country.

          Douthat portrays this idea of a new normal as an epidemic that will run the country to the ground; however, from another standpoint, this idea is simply a growth of realistic expectations. What is not considered in this article is the possibility that voters are not simply lowering their expectations of their ideal situation, but perhaps they are only realizing that the idea of either Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney stepping into office and swiftly creating an economic boom on all facets is highly unlikely.

          On a more personal view of this situation, Douthat's interpretation of this "new normal" is simply over pessimistic. Rather than seeing it as a growing content for economic failure, perhaps this new normal illustrates the willingness of people to follow what they know. Although an economic growth is shown to be dreadful and slow, it is what this very demographic is seeing before their own eyes - a solid plan. Douthat, however, seemingly confuses that with what this demographic sees as their "ideal", which I honestly believe, it isn't.

          So why is this "new normal" working for Obama? Douthat persists that the relationship between this "new normal" and Obama's success is caused by an overall lack of trust that many Americans have for the Republican party. But perhaps the struggling demographic would rather stick to what they know is slowly working, than to commit to an alternate plan, in which the results are uncertain. I wouldn't drive this explanation to the extent of saying that a newly elected Mitt Romney [hypothetically speaking] would be a gamble, but it just isn't as certain as what this demographic has already seen and experienced under Obama's [slow and dreadful] plan. Most importantly, this situation is not the ideal, but an indication that many Americans have confidence in their familiarity with Obama's plan.

Douthat, Ross. (Sep. 2012) "Why Obama is Winning". The New York Times. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-obamas-new-normal.html?_r=1