The Backseat Vice President

by Kevin Clang

In November 2008, the Democratic Party overtook both houses of Congress in an election that encapsulated exactly how the country was feeling at that moment. It was a repudiation of the far-right policies enacted by exiting President George W. Bush and echoed by many Republican Congressmen.

The Democratic victories left the Republican Party damaged and weakened in a way it had not been since taking over the majority in Congress in the mid-’90s. But a new question emerged: Who is the leader of the Republican Party?

At the time, the obvious answer was Sen. John McCain. Though he came up short in the electoral college, McCain was still a prominent figure in the GOP. But in his heart, McCain is a right-leaning moderate. He was never comfortable with many of the right wing policies he extolled during the campaign. Such wavering is not acceptable for someone who is the head of the party.

Like most defeated presidential candidates, McCain has remained mostly out of the spotlight since President Barack Obama took office in January.

For a while, it was assumed that McCain’s choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, would take up the reins. Though her personality polarized the country as a whole, the far-right faction of the GOP loved her. Then she quit her job in July, suddenly resigning before completing a full term as governor of Alaska.

The announcement sent shockwaves through the party. Since then, many candidates have attempted to step up to the forefront of the party, including South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich, but none have been quite the right fit.
Now it seems one has emerged.

For the past six months, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been on television more often than he was during the entirety of Bush’s two terms. Though he has consistently stated he has no plans of seeking higher office, Cheney’s current agenda suggests otherwise. Several “Cheney 2012″ T-shirts, Web sites and editorials have popped up on the Internet.

Sunday was the height of his crusade against the president, so far. Cheney told the president to “stop the dithering” and to “do what it takes to win” in Afghanistan.

When Obama’s staff is critical of anything that occurred between 2000 and 2008, Cheney is quick with a retort. He has been on a rampage, defending his own record while renouncing Obama’s. All this takes place while he is being investigated by the FBI for his dealings in the Valerie Plame leak and the government’s use of torture.

For Cheney to be so publicly critical of the sitting president this early in Obama’s term is a definite shift from the politics of the past two decades.

Nary a word was heard from former President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore during Bush’s formative first months. The same is true for Clinton’s first term in 1993. For the most part, former President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot both stayed out of the spotlight.

The reason presidents do this is simple. It’s for the good of the country.

The American people made their decisions in November. They were decidedly against the Bush-Cheney philosophy of America first, questions later. Cheney may be unhappy with Obama’s choices as president so far, but he needs to realize he’s not the No. 2 man in Washington anymore.

The fact is, the economic crises, the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were all inherited from the previous administration. No one asked for such obstacles, but they are dealing with them anyway. If the president wants advice from the person who helped cause such problems, he is free to ask for it.

Until then, Cheney should keep quiet.

Drawing the line in the sand about U.S. healthcare

by Kevin Clang

This month, Congress will go back to work hammering out legislation after their August recess. Among these Congressmen will be the famed “Gang of Six,” three Republican and three Democratic Senators from the Finance Committee who, for most of the summer, spent their time writing a bipartisan healthcare bill. The group, like most things in Washington, was formed with the best of intentions.

Democratic Party leadership has struggled to bring about the changes they promised in 2008. Photo from the Christian Science Monitor.

Unfortunately, things didn’t go exactly as planned. Two of the three Republican Senators have been unwilling to work with Democrats and seem intent on stopping the bill before it reaches the floor. Somewhere in the talks, bipartisanship got lost.

Let’s get one thing straight — President Barack Obama doesn’t need bipartisanship to pass his healthcare plan. With a comfortable majority in both the House and Senate, the Obama administration could have Congress draft a bill and then use some executive muscle to get it passed. It wouldn’t be pretty, but the plan would be enacted.

President George W. Bush used this method to pass bills such as the Patriot Act when Republicans held a slim majority in the House and were essentially deadlocked in the Senate. But Obama is not going to do this. He is, at his heart, a legislator first. A compromiser. He realizes that healthcare is a major issue in this country, and he seems committed to fixing it in a way that will please everybody.

The problem is that not everybody is willing to cooperate. He can’t please Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who said at a rally that Americans have to slit their wrists and make a covenant to make sure the bill doesn’t pass.

He can’t please former governor Sarah Palin, who fabricated the notion of death panels. He can’t please former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has called Obama a McCarthyist who wants to “put terrorists on welfare.”

By trying to appease the far right, Democrats, particularly the president, are appearing weak. The agenda of hope and change that Obama advocated during his campaign is being abandoned for a watered down version, or, politics as usual.

This is how discussions about dropping the public option from health reform began. The public option, a government healthcare plan that would compete with private companies, is a good idea. It would help to keep insurance companies honest and stand as a cheaper option for those who cannot currently afford health coverage.

Los Angeles has had a similar system for more than a decade with its L.A. Care Health Plan, which has over 800,000 enrollees. The mostly successful Medicare is another good example of this. A public option is not only possible, it’s necessary to healthcare reform. The thought of a healthcare bill without a public option written in is staggering. Mandating citizens to purchase healthcare that is unaffordable would solve nothing.

Americans deserve healthcare reform. More than 70 million people in this country are either uninsured or underinsured. Insurance companies routinely drop clients just when they need coverage the most. The World Health Organization ranks America’s healthcare system at No. 37 in the world, behind countries such as Malta, Dominica and Oman. In a country as prosperous, principled and celebrated as the United States, the status quo is unacceptable.

Obama should stop letting Congress push him around. When the stimulus debate was raging, Republicans in Congress worried that the price tag was just too steep. Obama listened and compromised, lowering the cost of the bill by hundreds of billions of dollars. Turns out we didn’t spend enough, and now American unemployment is the highest it’s been in decades. He is now falling into the same trap.

Republicans have already made their decision: They want the president to fail. Obama needs to remind everyone that he is commander in chief and use his Democratic majority to his advantage now before he loses it next November.

Barack Obama’s Middle East Peace Initiative: Important Step Forward or Giant Waste of Time?

One of the central promises Barack Obama made during his historic campaign for president was to meet with leaders of countries in order to establish a prominent U.S. relationship throughout the world.  Critics hailed this policy as naive and uninformed, but Obama viewed the meetings as potentially very beneficial to both the United States and the world’s opinion of us abroad.

President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu in order to discuss Obama's Middle East peace initiative.

Today, President Barack Obama plans to meet with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the first of several high profile meetings with prominent officials from the Middle East region this month.  Perhaps the most controversial region in the world as far as U.S. relations go is the Middle East.  Previous administrations have taken varying attitudes towards the region, some of which have been very damaging.
The potential benefits of a strong relationship between the United States and the Middle East are numerous.   “Actions taken by the United States in the past have been very shortsighted,” says Elon University political science sophomore Taylor Foshee, “The chances of conflict becoming more violent towards the United States is growing.  We can mitigate that.”
Beyond that, the United States could also be gaining valuable trade partners.  “Potential benefits include not only less paranoia, but also more stability in the oil and energy markets.  It could open up more markets,” says Elon University journalism junior Morgan Little.  “Opening up markets with Iran will let our trade do the talking.  Embargos don’t work . . . if we increase our exports it may increase our GDP.
Obama is doing his best to distance himself from previous presidents, particularly George W. Bush, to varying degrees of success.  “President Bush kind of painted diplomacy into a corner with his ‘our way or no way’ attitude across the world,” says Elon University professor Glenn Scott.   Cornell University economics junior Dan Cerqueira agrees: “It worked once, with rapprochement in Iran and Syria.  After that though the Bush doctrine was basically a disaster.”

Little says “Syria basically woke up and realized they didn’t get anything from the United States.  Bush’s policies were very counterproductive in the region.  It’s like throwing a rock into a lake, you have the ripples come out from the middle.  It was supposed to be a wave of democracy for Bush, but it was just a wave of failure.”
Obama himself seems uniquely qualified for this job, especially when he is compared to past Presidents.  “Obama’s background definitely helps him, coming from international roots and being viewed as an underdog,” says Foshee.  “His broadening of focus and involving other countries besides Israel is definitely a plus,” says Loyola of Chicago political science freshman Dustin McQuary, who campaigned for Obama preceding the election.  Cerqueira says simply, “People relate to Obama easier than Bush.”
These animosities have been building up for a long time, though.  “In the partitioning of the Middle East after World War One, they did it very arbitrarily without a consciousness towards ethnic and religious differences in the region.  They kind of imposed the separations on people,” says Foshee.  “This created unnecessary conflict.”

Peace negotiations in the Middle East are being called ambitious at best, potentially distracting at worst.  “I definitely believe that speaking with the Middle East is a step in the right direction, but the President’s focus right now should be on improving the American economy,” said McQuary.
“We should not probably expect any great concessions today,” Scott says about the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, the first such meeting since each was elected.  “Both are trying to explain where the public opinion is in their own countries.  Both need to please their own constituencies before they can take any risks and change things.”

In the past, the United State’s relationship with Israel has been a problem.  “Negotiations in the region seem to deteriorate any time we support Israel,” Cerqueira believes.  “We need to redefine our goals, right now nothing is really changing,” McQuarry thinks.
One thing everyone can agree on is that achieving any sort of peace or understanding will be a long process, and we should not expect anything soon.  Little explains “It takes much longer to heal relationships than it does to destroy them, and we’ve been destroying relationships in the Middle East for decades.”
“I don’t know how far he can take it,” says Cerqueira, “Israel is pretty far to the right and is unlikely to accept any sort of two-state solution.”
“The United States will have to convince Israel that we won’t abandon them (in order to convince them to accept a two-state possibility),” says Scott.  “The Israeli and Palestinians need to promise each other peace and stability.  There has been a lot of progress, though.  We find ourselves in a very nice position.”
President Obama plans to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on May 26 and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 28 to further solidify his peace initiative.

Math Tools for Journalists – Chapter 1

by Kevin Clang

Much to the dismay of many professional reporters, journalism and math go together hand in hand.  There are numbers in every story, and if one does not  know how to use them correctly the story can become very confusing for the reader.  Math really is another language.  Luckily, Dr. Kathleen Woodruff Wickham explains all the necessary number tricks a reporter will have to learn before going out covering their own stories.

One should spell out numbers between one and nine, but for anything over 10 it is acceptable to use numerals.  Once you get to larger numbers, spelling out things like 1 million will suffice.  Fractions such as one-third should also be spelt out.  Numbers should not be used to begin sentences, but if you must do so, you should spell it out rather than use a numeral.  Decimals must be kept to two places.

Readers cannot be expected to do math; the reporter should calculate any necessary equations before publishing the story.  A journalist may also simplify results in ways  an average reader may understand better, using metaphors and analogies.  The word “farther” refers to physical distance, while “further” refers to a degree.  Temperatures are higher or lower, not warmer or cooler.

Roman Numerals: I + III = IV

Percentages: 75% of 500 = 500 x .75 = 375

Statistics: Find the mean of 2, 4, 8, 9, 27, and 42

2+4+8+9+27+42=92,   92/6=15.3

Consumer Price Index:  The average CPI for January of 2004 was 162.4.  By March it rose to 164.  Find the inflation rate.

(164-162.4) / 162.4 x 100 = .98, or almost 1 percent.

Investigative Reporters Handbook – Chapter 21

by Kevin Clang

Early on a journalist learns the press’s functions: to inform people and act as a watchdog on those in power.  Sometimes forgotten is the fact that the press has a responsibility to all people, not just the rich or middle class.  Often, it is the poor, needy and impoverished  that need the attention that the press can provide the most.  Throughout history the press have recognized the needs of the poor when it seems like the rest of the world is ignoring them.

In such a capitalist society, the lack of money to live day to day can be devastating.  It can affect every aspect of a person’s life: education, nutrition, healthcare, crime,  residence, opportunity, and overall happiness.  Those who fall below the poverty line may feel like they have no voice in society, and thus, no hope to stand up against injustice.  The book states that injustices usually come in three types: living conditions, business exploitation, and government fraud.

Stories like these are not the type that just fall into someone’s lap, it is the reporter’s responsibility to go out and find  them.  By talking to people in neighborhoods and organizations you would not normally visit, it can offer a much needed different perspective on any type of story.  In doing this you can also gain the trust of the community, which may benefit your career in the long run.

The one time a class-type story does fall into your lap is during a natural disaster, though that is no guarantee that you will cover it in the way it deserves.  The New Orleans Times-Picayune was able to step up to the challenge with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and were awarded with a Pulitzer Prize for their efforts.  By covering FEMAs lack of ability to provide aide and shelter to the struggling region, the Times-Picayune brought national attention to a local issue.

Soon, Anderson Cooper was reporting on CNN live from New Orleans and citizens all over the country were sending money and food to the refugees displaced from their homes.  New Orleans was provided with a glimmer of hope, all thanks to good reporting.  Journalists were able to step out of their comfort zones and write about things that must have been very difficult for them to witness, but in the long run it did a lot of help to the region that they loved.  In the end, this is what reporting is all about.

Investigative Reporting Handbook – Chapters 13 & 14

by Kevin Clang

The value of knowing how to report on businesses as really shown itself in the past few months.  With the possible economic recession, President Barack Obama’s stimulus package and the bailouts and bankruptcies of many major American companies, business reporting has taken its place on the front page of many newspapers.  

Like education and healthcare before it in previous chapters, business reporting will always be a necessity in one form or another.  For this reason, it is an invaluable skill to have.

Perhaps the easiest companies t o investigate are those that are publicly traded in the stock market, as there are several laws and regulations that they must follow.  The SEC’s Wed site is a great starting point for any  investigation.  There, one will find all of the quarterly documents and files that every publicly traded company must release.  

With hindsight being 20/20, if today you looked at the reports from Chrysler over the past five to ten years or so, one would definitely be able to see the warning signs long before anyone actually spotted them.  Understanding the terms used in a company’s annual reports is key to doing this.

After paper trails like these, undoubtably the most useful sources any reporter will use are human ones.  Papers give details, but human sources provide necessary insight into just what is going on in any business.  Ideally the major movers and shakers in any business would be honest and forthcoming with information, but unfortunately this often is not the case.  Instead, it is sometimes useful to contact academics or other experts.

Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post has made a career out of doing all of this.  A  recent Pulitzer Prize winner for his commentary on the economy, Pearlstein investigates America’s most important businesses every week in his column.  

While it would be easy to be all doom and gloom in such a column, especially given the current state of the economy, Pearlstein resists.  Instead, he uses his intelligence and experience to offer constructive  criticism to the nation’s largest conglomerates, and has written many articles on just what the American people have to do in order to save them.  Through his hard work he has earned the trust of not only the American public, but also the businesses that he has investigated.

The story extends much further than the owners and experts  of the business game; sometimes a reporter will have to move into the warehouse.  Stories can benefit from both  white collar and blue collar perspectives, and for this reason it is important to investigate how a CEOs decisions will affect the average Joe.  The Detroit Free Press has done an exemplary job in doing just this while looking into the city’s failing auto industry.

America needs business.  But like everything else, businesses can become corrupted, lazy or poor, so they need a watchdog to keep them in line.  It is a business reporter’s  job to understand the complicated theories and transactions associated with any business dealing.  By doing this, they exercise a check on the amount of power any business has.  If we had been better at looking out for businesses sooner in the  millennium, we may have saved  Wall Street and Detroit.

Movie Review: Watchmen Survives the Hype, Mostly

By Kevin Clang

From a filmmaking perspective, “Watchmen” is a monumental and groundbreaking achievement, one that will be remembered for some time.  Director Zack Snyder and screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse have taken a graphic novel that has often been described as un-filmable and adapted it into a gorgeous and stimulating motion picture.  Brutal and bleak, “Watchmen” at times offers us perhaps the most human superheroes we have ever seen on film.  It is a comic book movie that makes most other comic book movies look silly.  “Watchmen” is utterly unique.

"Watchmen" is rated R for violence, gore, adult situations, and nudity.

Moviegoers should know what they are getting into before they sit down; “Watchmen” is not your typical action movie.  The film is both trippy and intellectual in ways that most audiences will not expect.  Dealing with heady issues such as morality, rape, impotence and what it means to be human, “Watchmen” is certainly not for everyone.

When it was originally released in 1986, writer Alan Moore’s 12 issue series “Watchmen” revolutionized the comic book industry.  Its main story followed masked vigilante Rorschach while he investigated the murder of Edward Blake, another vigilante know as The Comedian.  In doing so Rorschach unearths a plan to kill off all former costumed heroes, which forces him to reconnect with his old partners.  The comic is set in an alternate 1985, where superheroes exist but have been outlawed by President Richard Nixon, serving his fourth term.

For the most part, Snyder’s adaptation is incredibly faithful to its source material.  Chocked full of back stories, origins and other supplements, Snyder does his best to fit as much of the graphic novel’s material onto the screen.  If anything, the director tries to do too much, the end result feeling disjointed and truncated.  Fans of the story will easily be able to follow the plot and recognize specific scenes from the comic; those who have not read the book may often feel lost. 

While he is able to form his own vision with the story, Snyder’s affinity for speed ramping and the considerable amount of violence and gore he has added feel out of place.  The movie is not for the squeamish. An obnoxious soundtrack and an added subplot involving Richard Nixon detract more from the film than they add as well.  “Watchmen” is also notable for having perhaps the most unintentionally funny sex scene I’ve ever seen.

Despite all this Snyder does do a lot of things right.  At 163 minutes, the film is quite long, but thankfully it very rarely drags.  The cast is exceptional, especially Jackie Earle Haley as the sociopathic Rorschach.  Haley dominates the role, and the story suffers whenever he is not on screen.  Rorschach does some questionable things, but the audience always roots for him.  A character with such a black and white sense of morality would have been easy to exaggerate, but Haley never goes over the top. 

Like last summer’s “Dark Knight,” “Watchmen” is a big budget movie that Hollywood just isn’t supposed to make anymore.  “Watchmen” is notable for being both incredibly ambitious and somber, even if ultimately it ends up being crushed by its own weight.  After 20 years in production, Snyder should be congratulated just for getting the damn thing done as faithfully as he has.  It is definitely worth seeing, but to fully appreciate it you should read the comic first.

3.5/5 stars

A Rough Week for India – Slumdog Millionaire, Bobby Jindal Squander Special Oppertunities

by Kevin Clang

(An abridged version of this article originally ran in The Pendulum on May 3.)

You kind of had to feel bad for India last week.  A country that has been ravaged by poverty, disease and terrorism in the past few months was given two brief slivers of hope only to have both of them dashed the next day. 

First, “Slumdog Millionaire” had an historic night at the 81^st Annual Academy Awards.  En route to a near-sweep, “Slumdog” won eight trophies, including one for best picture.  The wins completed an extraordinary underdog run at Hollywood.  The relatively low budget “Slumdog” was able to eclipse big budget epics such as the effects-laden, time-bending “Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” World War II era “The Reader” and the acclaimed presidential drama “Frost/Nixon.”

Anyone who had been paying attention saw this coming, but that does not discount the significance of the movie’s wins.  Accepting the best picture trophy, the elation of the film’s mostly non-white staff was obvious. It was especially evident in the eyes of “Slumdog’s” child actors, most of whom were picked out of actual Mumbai slums.  The kids were given a weekend to remember.  They were flown to Hollywood, given new clothes, and taken to Disney World.

This weekend they returned to slum life, struggling from day to day and sleeping on the floor.  Not one day had passed after the Oscar wins when news started to leak from Mumbai that the “Slumdog” child actors may not have been adequately paid for their work.  Budgeted at about $15 million, “Slumdog Millionaire” will likely gross over $100 million.  Some of this money should be invested in the Mumbai communities “Slumdog” depicted to such success.  Director Danny Boyle has promised to buy new flats for all of the children, but I will believe it when I see it.

On Tuesday President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to discuss his stimulus plan.  Republicans have criticized the plan since it was introduced, calling it costly, wasteful and unlikely to help the economy.  Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal offered the Republican response following Obama’s speech.  Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, is widely regarded as the next big name in the Republican Party and is oft mentioned as a possible 2012 presidential candidate.

He was a natural choice to deliver the response speech.  The stimulus is absolutely something worth debating; the economy desperately needs help, and such an expensive endeavor must be guaranteed to work.  Unfortunately Jindal offered nothing new to the argument.  The Governor merely restated the same Republican talking points we have been hearing for the past month (small government, tax cuts, bad spending etc.) instead of offering a constructive argument with new ideas.  Worse, his tone was called “hokey,” “amateur,” and “awkward” by pundits.

The speech was a missed opportunity for Jindal and the Republican Party.  In Jindal’s defense, minority response speeches are very hard to pull off.  With no audience to feed off of, one must get their tone exactly right early on.  Even ignoring his poor delivery, Jindal’s written words rang hollow and hypocritical.  Jindal has publicly stated that he plans to refuse stimulus money, which is only partly true.  In the current plan Louisiana is due to receive $3.8 billion; Jindal plans to accept $3.7 billion.

If A bad speech is by no means a career killer.  If Jindal wants to set himself up as a potential leader of this country, however, he will need to start offering new ideas to the American people instead of recycling the old ones.  This is probably not the last we will hear of Bobby Jindal.  Hopefully last week’s Oscars will not be the last time we hear about the “Slumdog Millionaire” kids and the Mumbai slums that they live in, either.  The movie has finally shed light on a human rights crisis that most Americans had no idea about.  Now that the film is over we cannot go back to ignoring it.

Ideological Anchors do Little to Advance Journalism

by Kevin Clang

“I’m sorry,” he says, voice quivering and tears beginning to well in his eyes, “I just love my country – and I fear for it.”  With that line, Glenn Beck concluded a March 2009 broadcast of his new show on Fox News.  The episode marked a bit of a transition for Beck, who now seems to be abandoning typical political commentary to fully embrace his self described Howard Beale-esque method of delivering the day’s news.

In three months, Beck has done everything from calling President Obama a communist to insulting thousands of Muslim Americans.  He has made a name for himself by making inflammatory if not outright offensive statements on a nightly basis under the disguise of commentary.  Since moving to Fox News in January, ratings for Beck’s show have skyrocketed.  2.4 million people tune in at 5 p.m., previously a dead zone for cable news, to listen to Beck’s thinly veiled opinion on the day’s most popular stories. Like Bill O’Reilly before him, Beck has seemingly struck a chord with conservative Americans frustrated with the direction the country is going.

Liberal pundits have found similar success on other networks.  Over at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann has consistently challenged O’Reilly’s high ratings by appealing to liberals; consistently criticizing the Bush administration, John McCain, and the War in Iraq.  Olbermann has also took it upon himself to be a watchdog for Fox News, often mocking the words of his conservative opponents.  He ends his show every night with the amount of days it has been since Bush declared victory in Iraq in 2003.

Jon Stewart has also made a name for himself since taking over as host of “The Daily Show” in 2000.  Much has already been said about Stewart, a self-described comedian first with a hobby for journalism.  Stewart and his writers have built up the show’s acclaim to monolithic levels.  It is almost impossible to criticize Stewart; those who do are often mocked in segments on his show.  Even when the variety program out steps its bounds, as it arguably did during Stewart’s visceral takedown of Jim Cramer and CNBC, it escapes relatively unscathed.  The amount of clout the Daily Show has in politics is incredible for any program, especially one with the occasional fart joke.

Americans need to realize that television shows such as these are entertainment, not news.  While they do keep people informed by reading daily stories off of a teleprompter, Beck, Olbermann and Stewart are performers first and journalists second.  Every move, voice quiver, or fit of tears one sees during their respective shows is rehearsed beforehand.  This wave of “infotainment” is having detrimental effects on television journalism as a whole.  To become popular in today’s cable news world, all one has to do is make ill-informed ideological statements nightly and vehemently criticize everyone who disagrees with you (but only actually let them on your show on rare occasions).  Oh, and jokes help too.

Just ask CNN what happens when you fail to do this.  While not completely commentary free, when compared to Fox and MSNBC CNN’s liberal bias seems quite negligible.  The one time news juggernaut has seen its ratings steadily decline in the past few years, to the point where now it finds itself in third place behind the other two stations.  Watch what you want, but realize what you are getting when you do.  Americans should not be distracted or fooled by this disguised commentary.

Hey, Texas! Secession Solves Nothing, Stay Together for the Kids

by Kevin Clang

(This story originally ran in The Pendulum on April 21)

Politicians like to demonstrate the unity of our country by pointing out the idea that there are no red states or blue states, just the United States.  It is a nice line if your running for an elected office, but it could not be further from the truth.  While there have always been major ideological differences between our many states, rarely in our history have they been so numerous. 

Red and blue political beliefs are growing further and further apart and it is getting increasingly difficult for the two to understand each other.  Big government versus small government.  Pro-life versus pro-choice.  In today’s America, you’re either a gay-marrying, baby-killing member of a blue state or a gun-toting, Bible-loving member of a red state.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggests secession as a viable option when faced with dominance by an opposing party in Washington. (From rickperry.org)

So it is really no surprise to hear talks of sovereignty and even secession from some states unhappy with Washington’s current spending policies.  Alaska, Vermont, and most recently Texas have all spoken of secession in the past few years.  With the struggling economy, the United States finds itself at its lowest point in recent memory.  Morale is down and the states are starting to point fingers at each other.

Let’s ignore that statements are made to get attention, not to be taken seriously.  Also, let’s ignore that 75 percent of Texans don’t even want to secede, and that even mentioning the action is crazy un-American.  Let’s too ignore that the possibility of secession is unrealistic and remote at best; states would have to defeat the most powerful military on the planet to succeed in seceding.  Does the United States have a problem?  If so, how do we fix it? 

Since there is no idiot’s guidebook to repairing feuding states within a country, I consulted the next-best source: Relationshiprich.org, a website that uses Dr. Phil’s books to give advice to troubled married couples.  When you think about it, the United States is not unlike an unhappy, old married couple on its last nerve. 

We’ve experienced the blissful union of 1776, the mid-life crises Civil War, and moved into old age with World War II.  Now, it’s like we’re recently retired: we worked hard and now have the attention and respect of everyone around us, but beneath the surface we’ve grown bitter as we’ve all drifted away from each other.  And all the money we saved up is running out.

Dr. Phil stresses listening and understanding as the two main things bickering spouses need to do for each other. From drphil.com

 

First off, this constant arguing is not helping anyone.  States need to learn to listen to each other’s gripes rather than constantly trying to defend themselves.  Simply listening to each other without trying to advance an agenda may help defuse the situation.  Incessant attacks just exacerbate the problem and increase potential damage.  The first step to understanding each other’s differences will be to acknowledge them.

Listening to each other will give us greater perspective and allow us to see the issues from the other side’s point of view.  This will broaden our picture, letting us see past red or blue issues and focus more on America’s issues.  Our differences are one thing that makes America great.  The country needs this back and forth between ideas.  If one side secedes, the country loses.  The key is to talk about these matters without allowing them to anger us.

The blame game also needs to stop.  Both sides have made mistakes.  While taking responsibility off of ourselves and putting them on the other states may feel good, especially when we know that we are right, it turns the others into adversaries.  This opens the door to more argument, which only leads to guilt, shame and resentment.

Being the minority party is just part of politics: sometimes you’re up and sometimes you’re down, but in the end the American people will decide what is best for them and we need to accept that even if we don’t agree with current policies.  It would be a tragic shame to lose any one of the fifty states.  Each is so unique and special, adding its own distinctive flavor and culture to the country.  Seceding is equivalent to giving up; by doing so, the other side automatically wins.  Perhaps Congress could benefit from hiring a marriage counselor or two to sit in on vitriolic sessions – maybe then they could see past their own egos and consider what is best for the country.