The View From Down Here: Politics, Media, and Generation Y: Part 2 of 3

Politics has always been prone to backbiting and petty theatricalities. Why, then, does the current scene seem especially hopeless? Why has the younger generation of voters so significantly withdrawn from political involvement? We suggest that a distrust of the news media is what makes the political scene look especially bleak to young voters.

The typical miasma of political contention has spread out of Capitol Hill and into our news channels and newspapers. News channels feature political commentary more than news, and political commentary features belligerence more than political commentary.

A clear manifestation of the deficit of trust of the media was a 2009 poll done by Time magazine. Walter Cronkite held the title (since 1974) of “Most Trusted Man in America”. Cronkite was the most visible figure in the media, which at the time provided objective discourse and information to the public, and he died in 2009. In the subsequent Time poll, voters said that the most trusted news anchor in America was Comedy Central host and political satirist Jon Stewart.

                                                                                                                                                                      

The fact is that the news media is supposed to provide a momentary stay against political hostility, an unbiased source of objective information for the public, and that it is not doing this. Consequently, the public is losing their faith in the news media, and by extension the American political system itself.

News media has become another tool used by political parties to influence the opinions of the public. A particularly blatant example of this is the “Plan for Putting the GOP in the News” memo from the Nixon administration. The 15-page memo was anonymous, and has written comments on it by Nixon’s then-advisor and current Fox News President Roger Ailes.

The memo stated that television was the best medium for political persuasion because of its imminent popularity: “People are lazy. With television you just sit - watch - listen.  The thinking is done for you.” The plan was to record prepackaged interviews with Republican politicians and deliver the videotapes to local news stations. Presently, critics say that Fox News has demonstrated their role as an arm of the Republican Party.

MSNBC, while on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Fox News, is similar in its audacious political stance. In a distasteful and recurring ending rant on his show, former host Keith Olbermann once shouted (his monologue was directed at then-President Bush), “This war is not about you … shut the hell up!”. Fellow host Chris Matthews also said after a 2008 Obama speech that he “felt this thrill going up my leg as Obama spoke.”

So it can be concluded that the media has become unabashedly partisan. Even the very fact that it is standard for each major newspaper to endorse a presidential candidate reflects a problem in the nature of journalism. It results in an overtly ideological news organization - the New York Times is liberal, the Wall Street Journal is conservative; the Washington Post is liberal, the Washington Times is conservative, etc.

A news staff tending to lean one way on the opinions page is typical and expected; however, the fear is that the ideological slant of the editorial pages will seep into the news coverage. The potential and underlying ‘spin’ of news stories becomes more important than the objectivity of the events being reported.

And maybe the Nixon administration’s prediction about the easy audience of television was prescient: political commentary television programs can be especially caustic and, at times, juvenile. They seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public and of individuals. Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly are all political commentators who base their rhetoric on the petty mockery of whoever disagrees with them - their arguments are negative, not positive, and clever insults take precedent over constructive criticism.

Most of the public is aware of Rush Limbaugh’s stupid and unfunny bit in which he referred to a Georgetown student as a “prostitute” and a “slut” for saying that Georgetown health insurance should cover contraception. But the name-calling does not stop there: other instances of sexist slander have been just as offensive but haven’t received as much news coverage as Limbaugh’s insult. Bill Maher, a liberal comedian and amateur political commentator on HBO, referred to Sarah Palin as “a tw-t” and “a c-nt”. Chris Matthews, MSNBC host, called Hillary Clinton “witchy,” “uppity,” and claimed that she was elected to the Senate only because her “husband messed around.”

The state of the news media today is disheartening because the system of acidity seems to be self-perpetuating. Indeed, truculence has become a prevailing rhetorical device. Keith Olbermann had a segment on his show (and a book) called “The Worst Person in the World”. Glenn Beck wrote a book in 2009 called “Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government”.

The media also plays up and encourages contention between politicians. Recently, Obama and John Boehner were arguing about Obama speaking to a joint session of Congress about the American Jobs Act. The back-and-forth between the two politicians, as described by Ezra Klein, was all day “dominating and delighting the political news media,” while the focus on the discussion about the employment bill was ignored.

The news media, in the decades when a news anchor was the most trusted human being in the country, served the needed purpose of sorting out the mess of political rhetoric and communicating events to the public with clarity and transparency. In the formative years of the current generation of young adults, however, the public reports to trust a political satirist more than the most prestigious news anchors.

The media itself has not only lost its ability to objectively inform the public of unbiased political events - it has become a tool for fostering and encouraging political contention. The role of the news media is not just lost - it has been perverted. As Jon Stewart said to the hosts of Crossfire, this inflammation of petty and theatrical bickering isn’t just bad journalism - it’s hurting America.

David Brooks said: “There’s a collapse in the public’s faith in American institutions. The media has done a poor job. We’ve become as insular and self-regarding as any [other institution].” It is no wonder, then, that there is a deficit of trust among the younger generations - the apparent disintegration of the integrity of our news sources is nothing less than repelling.

The View From Down Here: Politics, Media, and Generation Y: Part 1 of 3

Between 1972 and 2002, youth voter turnout steadily dropped. There were slight increases in 2004 and 2006 and a significant increase in 2008, but the general trend has been a continuing decrease over the past 4 decades.  Between 2006 and 2010 alone, young voter turnout dropped by almost 20%; only 21% of eligible voters 18-29 voted in the 2010 midterm election, down from 26% in 2006 and 23% in 2002.

One possible explanation of the decline in young voting is the national shift to the political right. Young voters have for the last decade tended to vote Democrat, and the failures of the Democrats during the 2010 election cycle and the resurgence of conservative sentiment may have repelled young voters from the political scene in general.

However, while allowing for the fact that the very recent shift towards conservatism may have alienated a left-leaning younger generation, we should consider the possibility that broader trends in the evolution of the American political process are causing the general apathy of younger voters.

The unregulated flow of money into American politics, for example, may be discouraging Generation Y from being politically active. Politics has come to resemble legalized bribery, where private entities systematically donate to politicians on opposing sides to ensure political back-scratching from whomever is elected. Before the 2008 election, for example, Chesapeake Energy CEO Audrey McClendon donated the maximum amount possible to both the leading Democratic candidates (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and the leading Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney). Incidentally, his salary in 2010 was $21 million and his company paid $0 in income taxes despite $2.8 billion in profits.

In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission invalidated previous federal campaign law, which prohibited corporations and unions from using general funds to advocate for or against a candidate. The Citizens United decision drastically inflated private and corporate money's place in politics. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy quoted himself from McConnell v. Federal Election Commission:

"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech.  Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas.  The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it."

The problem with Kennedy's statement is that Citizens United did not place civic discourse in the hands of the people in any real sense. In reality, the legalization of unlimited donations to Super PACs gave more power to the extremely wealthy and no one else. The use of the free speech defense in a case which undermines the influence of individual voters made the decision all the more distasteful.

As of February 27, $130,334,342 has been raised by Super PACs supporting individual candidates. The infusion of PAC money into the 2012 Republican primary, especially, is unprecedented; this includes $36 million raised by the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, $13 million by the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future, and $23 million raised by unaffiliated conservative PAC American Crossroads.

The track records of the Super PACs paint a disheartening picture of the Citizens United ruling and its contribution to political discourse. Restore Our Future alone has (supporting Romney) already spent $25 million on this election cycle. Of that money, however, only $800,000 has been used to fund positive ads arguing for Romney as a candidate; $7 million has been spent on negative ads against Rick Santorum and the PAC spent $17 million on ads attacking Newt Gingrich, famously credited for ruining Gingrich's chances in the Iowa and Florida primaries.

With the power of a well-funded campaign clearly seen in Romney's case, it is discouraging to know that such a campaign could be funded by a few or even one ambitious and opinionated billionaire. Unlike Restore Our Future, the Gingrich-backing and horridly named Winning Our Future has spent more on positive ads about Gingrich than negative ads about other candidates. However, the PAC itself has been almost exclusively funded by Sheldon Adleson, a Las Vegas casino mogul. Adleson has donated $17 million to Winning Our Future so far and has said that he is willing to spend as much as $100 million in support of Gingrich.  Bizarrely, Adleson himself says that he is opposed to the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals in politics: "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," Adleson said, "but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros [George Soros, billionaire and supporter of liberal political organizations] have been doing it for years, if not decades."

It's true that the fundraising marathon is not limited to the Republican Party: since the Obama campaign's highly successful fundraising in 2008, it has been speculated that Obama in 2012 may raise as must as $1 billion in campaign donations and Priorities USA funds. The "Billion Dollar Campaign" prediction may be inflated, but the amount raised will still be significant. In February, for example, Obama went on a 3-day multi-state tour, hosting 8 fundraisers and netting $8.6 million; one of the fundraising dinners charged $35,800 per guest. Obama recently condoned the support of Priorities USA, the Super PAC unofficially associated with him, and members of the White House administration (though not Obama personally) will be involved with the PAC's fundraising efforts.

Legally, the Citizens United decision disallowed coordination between PACs and candidates, but it created loopholes by which the PACs can use their funds exclusively for one candidate. This essentially lets candidates collect unlimited donations while still technically adhering to campaign finance laws, which limit the amount of money candidates can receive from individual donors and private interests.

Even the founders and staffs of Super PACs are usually previous employees of the candidate the PAC supports. PACs were intended to be a voice for groups of citizens advocating for specific causes, but as a result of the Citizens United ruling they are now used as a tool to subvert the legally proscribed model of campaign funding.

The arms-race style of this monetary power struggle is an unfortunate consequence of the 2011 Citizens United decision. It is also a plausible cause of dissatisfaction among younger voters and the population at large. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet stated: "Allowing corporate influence to flow unfettered into federal campaigns will only undermine the confidence the American people have in their government." His predictions seem to have come true: according to the Pew Research Center, 65% of people believe the Citizens United ruling and the resulting influence of Super PACs are having a negative impact on the presidential campaign. This sentiment is fairly nonpartisan: the Pew results included 60% of registered Republicans, 63% of registered Democrats, and 67% of registered Independents expressing their dissatisfaction with the increasing role of private money in politics.

Under the guise of free speech, the Citizens United decision unintentionally allowed for an influx of more money into the political process, increasing the power of the wealthy few while decreasing the political influence of the general public. This process, exasperated by the politicization of the media, hyperpartisanship, and a deficit of leadership, has caused disappointment and distrust among younger voters.

Election 2012: The Other Campaigns

Much has been made of the upcoming presidential election of late; the constantly changing Republican primary, President Obama's fundraisers, etc.  It's easy to forget that there are also 435 House seats, 33 Senate seats, 12 Governorships, and countless state and local offices up for grabs. 

Presidential campaigns are sexy -- vast, opulent, glamorous.  Other campaigns are not, but they are as important if not more important in American governance and the future of our nation. 

In the 2010 election cycle, Republicans made significant gains in both the House of Representatives, where they now enjoy a 242-192 majority, and the Senate, where they remain in the minority 53-47.  It was an overwhelming swell of conservative sentiment and it has continued throughout the last year and a half.  Republicans are poised to pick up more seats in Congress in 2012, depending somewhat on the presidential nominee.

Romney's recent electoral challenges and malapropisms aside, he is still viewed by the majority in the establishment and media as the most electable candidate.  Republican leaders worry that the nomination of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have a negative impact on the Party's chances in the House and Senate elections.

That being said, the statistics are on the Republicans' side.  They will almost certainly maintain control of the House of Representatives.  The process of redistricting, where state legislatures -- dominated by one party or the other -- redraw congressional districts to benefit their political party, has vastly reduced the number of contested House races.   This process has made violent swings in House elections -- such as the Republican surge in 2010 where the GOP picked up 63 seats -- exceedingly rare.  Still, elections in districts such as the Arizona 5th, Colorado 6th, Illinois 11th, Iowa 3rd, and Maryland 6th will be closely watched. 

On the Senate side, there are 33 seats up for grabs, 23 of which are Democrats or Independents who caucus with the Democrats (Connecticut and Vermont).  Of the 10 contests where Republicans currently hold the seat, six are safe GOP holds, three are likely GOP holds, and only one -- Nevada -- is considered a tossup. 

Republicans will most likely win all the races in which they are the incumbent, with the possible exception of Nevada, as well as Nebraska, where Democrat Ben Nelson is retiring and conservative sentiment is strong.  This means that any further victories would be a net gain in Senate seats and bring Republicans closer to the majority. 

Control of the Senate will thus come down to seven tossup races: Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Democrats must win five of these races to maintain control of the Senate, while Republicans can gain control by winning four. 

There are two potential pickups for the GOP bringing their magic number to two.  In Wisconsin, former Republican governor Tommy Thompson has led Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin consistently in the polls, albeit by a fairly slim margin.  The same goes for Montana Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg against incumbent Democrat Jon Tester. 

The polls in Massachusetts, Virginia, Missouri, and Nevada -- all tossups -- are impossible to predict. 

The two most prominent of these races are Massachusetts and Virginia where four very strong and high-profile candidates are pitted against each other.  The Massachusetts race will likely become one of the most expensive Senate campaigns in American history.  Republican incumbent Scott Brown, who won a special election in 2009 to fill Ted Kennedy's open seat, is being challenged by Harvard Economist Elizabeth Warren.  One recent poll showed Brown with a seven-point advantage while another showed Warren with a three-point advantage. 

In Virginia, where Democrat Jim Webb is retiring, former Republican Governor George Allen is matched up against former Democrat Governor and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine.  The proximity to Washington, DC, and the stature of the two candidates has made this campaign a high-profile cash cow.  Polls have been consistently inconsistent; some have Kaine with a slight lead, some Allen. 

In general, Republicans are in a solid position to maintain control of the House while picking up seats in the Senate and possibly gaining a majority there.  Political campaigns are fickle, and much may and probably will change between now and then.  But the hope in Republican circles remains.

The Power of an Idea and the Perils of Camelot

“All men are created equal.”  As the tip of Thomas Jefferson’s quill lifted from the parchment of the Declaration of Independence, the idea of equality was forever sewn into the fabric of the American experiment, espoused in a founding document for the first time in world history.  It was unique in its simplicity, radical in its uniqueness.  

Centuries later, the idea of equality has not been fully achieved.  Racial tensions persist, gender discrimination continues, and anti-gay policies progress.  The 2008 election of Barack Obama, however, was a turning point in American history, an opportunity for the bigoted bias of generations past to be forever doomed to the ash heap of history. 

Obama is the quintessential American success story.  The ability of an African-American man, born in Hawaii and raised by a single parent, to achieve educational, financial and political success is a testament to Jefferson’s foundational idea of equality, and to how far we’ve come as a nation.  Obama embodies the American dream. 

As a presidential candidate in 2008, he campaigned as the “post-racial” and “post-partisan” candidate.  He was going to bring a new level of civility and equity to both the political process and the American system of governance.  As then-Senator Obama stated in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, “What struck me [while running for the US Senate] was how much of what they believed seemed to hold constant across race, region, religion, and class.  I told them that government couldn’t solve all their problems.  But with a slight change in priorities we could make sure every child had a decent shot at life and meet the challenges we faced as a nation.”

It is said in politics that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.  In Obama’s case, the poetry of the campaign—the promises of post-partisanship and the ideas of hope and change—attempted to implement Jefferson’s fundamental idea of equality.  But they were, unfortunately, misguided.  In many ways, the idea that most characterizes President Obama’s rise to power comes not from the founding of the American Republic, but rather the founding of an American dynasty. 

After the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, his wife Jackie gave an interview in which she referred to the Kennedy Presidency as an “American Camelot,” a time of progress and peace, honor and valor.  The term “American Camelot” has come to signify the Kennedy dynasty as a whole: the most powerful, picturesque, and influential family in American history.  But like the legends of old, where the principles and values of the Round Table were constantly subverted by the humanity of its occupants, the American Camelot also attempted to cloak the mortal failings of the Kennedys in a veil of dynastic tranquility and a manufactured image of serenity. 

The Kennedys are great Americans who have served their country for generations and continue to do so, but they often depended on their image to maintain their reputation in spite of their personal failings.  Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was a testament to the success of image politics.  He was portrayed as the candidate of all people, uninhibited by the backwards tensions of race, gender, and even party.  But the prose of his governance has been lacking in true substance, lacking in the practical consummation of Jefferson’s idea of equality.

While Obama is not the socialist his critics rail against, his political philosophy is centered in the belief that the government can mandate equality, success, and social progress.  He emphasizes the role the government plays in stimulating the economy, lifting the less fortunate out of poverty, and saving the environment.  In doing so, he has demonized corporations and the rich while idolizing community organizations and unions. 

The Camelot-like image of hope and change has given way to a statist philosophy of governance.  His intentions are valiant but the increase in government spending, bureaucracy, and unnecessary regulation actually hinder the idea of equality espoused in the Declaration of Independence.  As Jefferson stated, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government.” 

In reality, no presidency more clearly demonstrated true equality than that of Ronald Reagan.  Reagan should not be deified or idolized like he is by many on the right.  He and his presidency were flawed – Iran-Contra and the response to the AIDS crisis come to mind.  But his vision of the American dream and the power of the individual transformed America from the malaise-ridden stagnation of the Carter years to the enterprising boom of the 80s and 90s. 

The equality that Jefferson envisioned is only achieved when the power of the individual is unleashed and the entrepreneurial nature of the American people unhindered.  As Reagan stated, “Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success – only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, prosperous, progressive and free.”  To that I would add, only then is true equality of opportunity achieved.  

We as Americans must be wary of the Camelot-esqueFinancial Times, the budget “stabilizes our debt at 76 percent of GDP – ‘roughly double historic levels.’”  This timid incrementalism is unacceptable.

But the greater failure is the imposed stagnation of the individual spirit.  As the Obama Administration imposes their liberal ideology, the power of individual entrepreneurship is squelched and the opportunity for equality hindered. 

In 1984, Reagan said “Recognizing the equality of all men and women, we are willing and able to lift the weak, cradle those who hurt, and nurture the bonds that tie us together as one nation under God.”  The Reagan Revolution transformed America as we know it.  To solve the daunting challenges facing us we need another revolution of equal or greater strength and boldness.  But it should be a revolution based on the idea of equality and individual enterprise rather than the cursory image of Camelot.  

Thoughts From CPAC

The crowd’s reaction was mixed.  Boos and angry shouts of “No!” clashed with cheers of vindication as Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference Straw Poll.  This three-day conference—the largest and most famous of its kind, with over 10,000 participants—is an opportunity for conservatives to join together in small-government, traditional values brotherhood, but is it good for the conservative movement, and is it good for the country?

The mixed reaction to Romney’s straw poll victory was indicative of the nature of today’s conservatism.  Based on his policy positions, he would probably be the most conservative presidential nominee in recent history.  He is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-traditional marriage, strong on immigration, strong on defense, espouses austerity, the Ryan Budget, and the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  And yet, he is inadequate for some conservatives. 

The conference was chock-full of varying personalities, but not varying opinions – I’ll get to that later.  It involved journalists, like Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas, giving insightful analysis and thoughtful recommendations for future action.  It included former political figures, like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, engaging in unabashed self-promotion in an effort to maintain their grip of some sliver of the conservative population and to sell more books.  It also involved current political figures, like Senators Rand Paul and Jon Cornyn, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, clearly and passionately espousing the principles of conservatism in a way that reflected positively on themselves, their states and their cause. 

The general drift of the proceedings, however, was an unflinching, unequivocal, and stunningly tactless bombardment of President Obama and the policies of the last three years.  Obama was described as a radical, a socialist, a failed president, hater of the rich, hater of the poor, and – my favorite – an argument in favor of contraception.  Speakers and participants alike railed against welfare (which breeds dependency), Social Security and Medicare (which are bankrupting the country), gun-control (the essence of liberal overreach), and gay marriage (disgusting).  In some of these areas their points are valid, but the level of anger and, at times, heartlessness with which the participants viewed these issues is a recipe for electoral disaster. 

Which brings us back to Romney.  For all his conservative bona fides, many conservatives don’t believe he’s gone far enough, or is passionate enough.  Foster Friess, a wealthy investment banker and Santorum supporter, introduced the former Pennsylvania Senator and began with a joke: “So a Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar and the bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt.’”  In his remarks, Santorum argued that Romney disqualified himself from the Republican primary race by passing and continuing to defend Romneycare, a Massachusetts health care reform bill with many similarities to Obamacare.  Gingrich called Romney “timid” and “moderate.”  Without using his name, Texas Governor Rick Perry spelled out the conservative dissolution: “We do the American people no great service if we replace the current embodiment of Big Government with a lukewarm version of the same.” 

Current conservatism views Mitt Romney, whose own policies would put Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley’s to shame, as a “lukewarm version” of Big Government ideology.  Is this viewpoint good for the conservative cause or good for the country?  I don’t think so.  And this attitude applies to my larger point about CPAC itself. 

As I walked through the halls and the lobbies of the DC Marriott, two things struck me.  First, I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of otherness and isolation that hovered over the hotel like a heavy fog.  The three-day conference progressed completely devoid of outside influence and alternative opinion.  It was as if the conservative movement was acting out their own version of Gilligan’s Island, stranded on the sandy beaches of small-government philosophy, bolstered in their conservative camaraderie, and surrounded by the seas of liberalism and the circling sharks of the Obama Administration.  They must act in unison if they want to survive.  Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes the phenomenon as a Matrix-like “consensual hallucination,” an unwavering, psychological adherence to their image of the political world.  But the lack of disagreement and dissent will only weaken the conservative movement and deter its success. 

Writers such as David Brooks, who has written about the political skill and admirable leadership qualities of President Obama, or Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative blogger who opposed the war in Iraq and the torture of detainees, are not welcome at CPAC.  Politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been willing to compromise and work across the aisle, are also not welcome in more conservative circles.  These figures are viewed as disloyal to the cause of conservatism.  But as Edward R. Murrow stated, “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.  When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”  In this case, the death of loyal opposition within the conservative movement is a precursor to the death of conservatism as we know it. 

The second thing that struck me is a result of the first.  Without dissent and debate, the participants of CPAC carry the cross of conservatism with a biblical surety and unwavering passion.  The result is a myopic vision of America and its political landscape.  Participants immediately dismiss welfare and deem its recipients lazy, manipulative malcontents without even considering the plethora of factors (low education spending, lack of law enforcement, poor health care and health education) which deprive millions of the opportunities we enjoy.  They dismiss any type of gun-control as a massive overreach of statist government without considering the thousands who die every year from gun deaths.  They dismiss what they see as the homosexual perversion of marriage without even considering the implications of personhood for the LGBT community.

In many ways, their positions are fundamentally sound.  The welfare system is flawed and does, in some cases, breed dependence.  Universal gun-control does infringe on the rights of those who hold their second-amendment rights dear to their heart.  Gay marriage may negatively affect the fundamental values of our society.  But the way the conservative movement carries itself, most clearly portrayed in the three-day proceedings of CPAC, lacks tact, nuance and the ability to compromise – all valued skills in politics and in the basic art of persuasion. 

Mitt Romney may not be the most conservative candidate in the Republican field.  He may lack a certain fluency in conservatism (most likely the result of being a result-focused pragmatist for much of his life in the private sector).  But a Republican Party that decides Romney is not a conservative at all is a Republican Party doomed to failure.  And a conservative movement that lacks nuance and rigorous internal debate does nothing but harm itself and the country at large.  

War and the American Ideal

A few weeks ago, a video surfaced with four American soldiers urinating on the bodies of two Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan.  One of the soldiers jokes, “Golden, like a shower” and another look down at the bodies and wishes them a “good day.”  All of this was captured on video and, as with almost everything captured on video these days, uploaded to YouTube. 

The response from the powers that be was swift and damning.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called the act deplorable—the White House agreed—and Arizona Senator John McCain, a former POW in Vietnam, said that it tarnished the image and reputation of the Marine Corps. 

Nancy Sherman, a professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University and the first distinguished chair in ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy, stated that “the act is a violation of professional military conduct and the fundamental moral requirement in war of showing dignity and respect to the dead.” 

Furthermore, the act of urinating on a corpse is not sadistic or driven by anger—feelings that would be understandable, though acting on them still unacceptable—it is an act of degradation and shame.  Particularly in an environment of religious tension between the Middle East and the West, an act such as this is pure stupidity and has both strategic and philosophical implications. 

Earlier this week, a member of the Afghan National Army (our allies) killed four French soldiers. The soldier stated that he did it because of the video of the American soldiers degrading the body of his countryman.  Reports have also surfaced that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have begun using this video as a recruitment tool.  These are the real implications of the stupidity shown in the video.  Lives have been lost, will continue to be lost and the enemy will become stronger because of it. 

But there is a greater issue at stake: the moral standing of the American Republic and its example to the world.  Some have come out in recent weeks to criticize the Obama Administration’s response to the conflict.  Florida Congressman Allen West, a former Army Lieutenant Colonel, said “the Marines were wrong…As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”   Texas Governor Rick Perry said the desecration was a “stupid mistake,” called the criticism “over the top,” and claimed it reflected the Obama Administration’s “disdain for the military.”

California Congressman Duncan Hunter also urged that the marines “not be used for the purpose of making a statement to our partners in the region” meaning the soldiers shouldn’t be punished harshly simply to mend relationships with Afghan President Hamid Karsai or the Taliban during efforts at peace talks.  The most stunning of defenses I’ve heard came from a woman on talk radio who defended the marines by saying “they’re just kids.” 

This incident is not simply a mistake, a moment of unsound judgment.  Marines are some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world, but more importantly all U.S. soldiers understand that they are not simply “killing machines” but are rather the most numerous and visible representatives of the ideals of America in the world. 

Congressman West is right.  War is hell.  He went on to compare the incident to the American soldiers dragged through the streets of Mogadishu (made famous by the movie Black Hawk Down), and those tortured, beheaded and hanged in Iraq and Afghanistan.  War is hell, but what sets the United States apart is the way that it carries itself in the world, represented by the very soldiers who have been trained to kill – an interesting paradox. 

Whether in China, Burma, Syria or Rwanda, the United States has always opposed human rights violations and fought tirelessly — using diplomatic and military means — to defeat these abuses.  That is what we represent.  Those marines were not only degrading the bodies of their enemies, they were degrading the very ideals they are fighting to protect and defend. 

Alexis de Tocqueville once said “Two things in America are astonishing: the changeableness of most human behavior and the strange stability of certain principles.  Men are constantly on the move, but the spirit of humanity seems almost unmoved.”  On that day, the spirit of our humanity was moved, and for that moment we shrunk in our stature and example.   

The Nature of Responsibility

In the January 2012 edition of Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens—possibly the greatest intellectual of the last 30 years—addressed the issue of death from the perspective of one currently experiencing it (he was recently diagnosed with esophageal cancer and died on December 15^th).  He stated that there were only two things keeping him from fatalism and resignation: “a wife who would not hear of me talking in this boring and useless way, and various friends who also spoke freely.”  Not even Hitchens—the great atheist, wordsmith, luminary—was able to exist without partaking in society and relationship. 

During a conversation I had with him last semester, President of the Washington Institute and author of The Fabric of Faithfulness Dr. Steven Garber quoted Vaclav Havel—the recently diseased President of Czechoslovakia—who said that “the secret of man is the secret of his responsibility.”  I began thinking about the elusive nature of responsibility.  In many ways, it seems as though its meaning has remained a mystery in our culture--or, more nefariously, been purposefully subverted to emphasize the supposed victory of reason over emotion in the Modern and Postmodern ages. 

At the core of the idea of responsibility—truly at the core of humanity itself—is the importance of understanding our place within society and relationships.  We, as a culture, have a tendency to equate responsibility with independence.  We see responsibility as living on our own, buying a car, paying a mortgage, etc.  But true responsibility necessitates actively engaging with both our emotions and the values that our emotions articulate.  As New York Times columnist David Brooks discussed in his book The Social Animal, “Your unconscious, that inner extrovert, wants you to reach outward and connect…your unconscious wants to entangle you in the thick web of relations that are the essence of human flourishing.”

Brooks underscores the fact that the dichotomy of reason and emotion—particularly the supposed victory of reason over emotion—is a false one.  We view emotion as an untamed beast, unable to be controlled or even understood.  But Brooks states that “Reason and emotion are not separate and opposed. Reason is nestled upon emotion and dependent upon it. Emotion assigns value to things, and reason can only make choices on the basis of those valuations. The human mind can be pragmatic because deep down it is romantic.”   Far from being outside the realm of reason or understanding, emotion is the very foundation of reason, organizing the principles and value structures of our lives like an architect drawing blueprints for a building.  Our emotions, which guide our subconscious, seek to be in relationships.  We are, as Aristotle called us, social animals.

Even the ancients understood this concept.  Aristotle, writing in the 3^rd century BC, also said that “Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”  In the ancient poem Inferno, Dante and Virgil traverse the levels of hell passing through those which housed souls guilty of the sins of lust, gluttony, murder, theft, and falsehood.  At the final level resides sinners guilty of disloyalty to kin, country, guests, and lords.  To understand why Dante reserves the final level of hell (where Satan also resides) with the most gruesome of punishments, we must realize that Aristotle’s writings were, in many ways, the foundation of Dante’s thought.  Disloyalty is the worst of all sins in Dante’s conception because it is the destruction of relationships which are at the core of humanity.  It is, in essence, a perversion of humanity itself. 

Havel, reflecting on his time as a playwright, said “What is important is that it is far harder to store a play away in your desk drawer than it is poetry or prose.  Once written, a play is only half done, and it is never complete and itself until it has been performed in a theatre.”  The parallels to Brooks’ work are enlightening.  Writing a play—like living an independent, solitary life—is a wholly irrational, unfinished, and unfulfilling exercise.  Only in its engagement with society at large, the carrying out of its ideas in a physical and social manner, is theater—and life—consummated.  In this principle we find the true nature of responsibility.

True responsibility is understanding the benefit we can receive from and the good we can infuse into our community—whether it be a family, a city, or a church—and doing the work necessary to maintain and build up that community.  It is understanding the foundational role of the emotions and letting them guide our path and order our value structures.  The micro and macro problems we face as a society and as a country are complex and divergent, but at the core of many is a lost understanding of responsibility.  The key to future solutions may lie in the resurgence of this understanding. 

The secret of man is the secret of his responsibility. 

Jon Huntsman is the Most Electable Republican

For the last three years, the Republican Party has been engaged in a struggle to define itself.  They have seen the backlash resulting from the failed policies of the Obama Administration and realized that this is an opportunity to reassert the small government, free market, low tax pillars of Conservatism.  We have seen the emergence of the Tea Party, the sweeping midterm election of 2010 and the increasingly abysmal daily tracking polls for President Obama.

As the Republican primary commenced, this struggle played out in the constant tug and pull between a resurgent Republican base and the party establishment.  It is, as the media has portrayed it, a struggle between philosophical catharsis (Newt Gingrich) and electability (Mitt Romney).  But that dichotomy is deeply flawed.

Romney has been seen since day one as the establishment candidate with a broader appeal to independents and thus better general election chances.  The reality of the situation, however, is that Romney’s persona does not appeal to the country at large.  In a year when the electorate loathes the political process, and the politicians who guide it, Romney’s image of politician through and through will be viewed with skepticism, at the very least.

His electability is in question for another reason: the Obama Administration, which is inept at governing but unparalleled at campaigning, knows his weaknesses and has a strategy in place to defeat him.  They will—in fact they have already started to—paint him as an unattached, job-killing flip-flopper with no moral center, willing to say or do anything and everything to get elected.  It is hard to imagine a more powerful strategy for a general electorate which values consistency and boldness over almost anything else.

Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.  His recent rise in the polls is the result of his constant, vocal, and sometimes outlandish criticism of Barrack Obama, a cathartic experience for Republican voters who are angry and passionate about defeating him in 2012.  But Conservatives, Liberals, and the Obama Administration itself realize the ease with which they would cruise to victory were Gingrich nominated by the Republican Party, for two reasons.

First, his bombastic personality, which is a positive in the primary election, would become a negative in the general election and the chances of him saying something too outlandish would increase day by day.  His past statements, such as when he stated that “people like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” or when he described himself as a “definer of civilization” paint a picture of a Nixonian candidate, one with bold ideas and political prowess but hindered by substantial personal flaws.

Second, Gingrich is not the bastion of Conservatism that the Tea Party thinks he is.  The flip-flops on issues such as climate change, the individual mandate, and Libya are well known.  But more importantly, Gingrich has shown an utter disregard for some Conservative principles.  Last week, Gingrich committed Conservative heresy by responding to Mitt Romney’s statement asking the speaker to return the $1.6 million he received from Freddie Mac with his own challenge to return the money Romney made “bankrupting companies and laying employees off” at Bain Capital.  To equate crony capitalism and influence peddling with the market realities of capitalism itself is to completely misrepresent Conservatism and its principles, something voters will realize under greater scrutiny. 

If the Obama Administration is content with facing Mitt Romney in the general election, they are licking their chops at the potential nomination of Newt Gingrich.  But the dichotomy of Gingrich and Romney is flawed because it doesn’t include the candidate who is the most electable and who the Obama Campaign is most worried about, Jon Huntsman. 

As Conservative columnists George Will and Erick Erickson pointed out, Governor Huntsman has the most Conservative record of any of the Republican candidates.  The Wall Street Journal and most recently The Tax Foundation, a Washington based Think Tank, endorsed the Governor’s tax and jobs proposal as bold and transformative.  The New York Times ranked him as the most likely Republican candidate to defeat Barrack Obama.  He appeals to independents because of his consistent record, his foreign policy experience and his nuanced demeanor. 

The true dichotomy is not between catharsis and supposed electability; it is between candidates seeking political absolution through shallow verbal barrages and a candidate with the leadership credentials and bold proposals necessary to win.  Put simply, it is true electability.  Jon Huntsman is truly electable and he is the right leader to set the United States on the path toward future sustainability.