Obama vs. Romney: The Missing Pieces and Problems with Party Lines

We've all been in a political argument at some point in our lives. Let's get real. We've all said things like "I'm voting for candidate X because I believe in everything he stands for". However, that is only surface deep. Almost any American can look at a list of a candidate's standpoints and choose which candidate he would vote for, or like to represent him/her. However, this isn't how it goes down in real life. Sure, we can google a candidate (or an incumbent for that matter) and figure out which one we like and why. With that being said, it isn't always that easy. Outside pressures (that we rarely think about) exist, and they exist in great quantity. To illustrate this, imagine you are in a voting booth, you have no prior knowledge of the candidates involved, and no political party is listed beside their name. Only beliefs and statistics about the candidate are given. A hardcore Republican might be surprised that he has some democratic values, or perhaps he even voted for a democrat by "accident" (the same can go for democrats). The point being made is that party labels define too much of who we are politically. I've talked to Republicans up in Phoenix who support worker's rights and labor unions. I've met Democrats who have Republican tendencies when it comes to foreign policy and war. But should they be called Republican or Democratic tendencies? Shouldn't this just be considered normal? What about Democrats who refuse to watch Fox News? Or Republicans who hate NPR? These classifications only lead to the narrowing of categories which in turn leads to more biased information. This is often the explanation for what I call "candidate adaptability". We've all seen candidates transform from small town home boys (hopefully I can soon include women) who are in the race for all the right reasons. Then we start to notice changes in their ideology. Once a candidate is endorsed by a platform they must mold themselves into one of two categories (I will leave out third parties because they work in theory, but not in practice). Democrat? Okay, you have to be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, all small business. Republican? Small government, large business, no abortion, death penalty...blah blah blah. Is this really fair? Think about that while I transplant this argument into the current Presidential election.

Barack Hussein Obama will win this election. Pretty bold statement, I know, but I would bet my bottom dollar on it. Why? Limited adaptability. Obama has done a rather decent job of keeping his image, unlike his opponent Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney. Romney often catches himself changing his beliefs based on his fellow Republican's beliefs, as well as the beliefs of the party platform. Barack Obama has offered to lead and guide the country as a whole whether he has the support of a particular person or not. He said he would end wars (did it and working on it), he bailed out the auto industry (when it wasn't necessarily 'cool' to do so), repealed DADT (promised), among many other things (which I won't get into because this isn't an analysis of Obama's presidency). Mitt Romney on the other hand is having a difficult time, epecially when it comes to demographic groups. This is because he is too influenced by those around him. People like Santorum, Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh, etc have completely run the GOP into the ground, literally. Republicans are too busy in Congress attempting to pass rape/conception/ejaculation laws that they have lost touch with their original purpose. Rights are rights. They are not supposed to be voted on which is why they are called rights. Although some rights take time (civil, gay, trans, etc), they will come eventually. What the Republicans don't understand (or maybe they do and they just don't acknowledge it) is that times are changing. Today's younger generation is tomorrow's workforce and I feel like my generation is ready for some big changes. 'Rights' still have a notion of being 'earned' in this country, however, in today's setting, rights seem to come more naturally (you are born with them). Republicans have yet to modernize themselves, which often leads to them finding themselves in the position of a contortionist, which requires them arguing their way out of almost everything. Republicans (Tea Party specifically) are trying to go backwards when it comes to things like marriage, roles of women, tax hikes, etc. However, due to certain things and parameters such as media, technologial innovations, internet, etc times have honestly changed, tremendously. The 2012 GOP platform is the most conservative platform in modern history. Why? Many explanations are offered but here I will formulate my own. In past times (not too long ago), the GOP platform supported funding for the arts, higher wages, labor unions, and the ERA (equal rights amendment). However now, Republicans don't necessarily care about equal pay, they battle to the death with labor unions, and have no conscience for "liberal" things like education and the arts. Is this because over time Democrats have come to embrace these things? America is a two-party system. Two parties means two differing viewpoints and platforms. Instead of being innovative and creative, the GOP simply goes against democrats. If the Democrats support X, then Republicans will not. There is no longer a common ground as seen in the Eisenhower administration (for example). This notion often leads to Republicans (bluntly) looking stupid and flip flopping on many subjects. To show an example of this, I will use women. Democrats openly support gender equality and equal pay for women. They also support the right to choose. All of the aforementioned "liberal standpoints" must then be kept separate from Republican ideals, which means that women shouldn't be able to choose abortion, and they shouldn't make equal pay due to historical differences in gender demographics. However, when it comes to modern times, the Democratic values are the ones that make "sense". Of course women should make equal pay and not be held with a bias due to a vagina in between their legs. It's only logical. This is where the Republican problem lies: Times are changing and the Republicans are not ready to reconcile with Democrats and their true values. I honestly feel that Regan would laugh in the face of Santorum or Romney, punch them, and then ride off on horseback. And I feel completely comfortable saying that.

Now onto Obama who will be president from 2012-2016. He will win. Get over it. Romney has chosen to market himself to a specific group of individuals, rich, old, white guys who have nothing better to do than to vote for him. His problem arises when one takes into account minorities, women, and the younger generation, specifically students. The old white guy who votes for Romney won't be around in 20-30 years. But you know who will be? The 20 year old college student who voted for Obama in 2012 because he didn't want his loan rates going up. Or the young girl who voted for Obama because she wanted the right to choose. I'm not sure if the GOP understands the concept of prospecting. It's not only about the top tier of America who wants preservation for their own lives. It's now about the path of a country and the future generation. Voting among women and students is ever-high and is a huge factor when it comes to Obama's victory. If Romney would stop marketing himself to people who aren't going to be around in a few decades and start focusing on the future, he might get somewhere. A lot of people criticize Obama for going on shows like The Tonight Show, or participating in photo shoots for Rolling Stone, They say that's not the place for a President of a free world. Well I disagree. Media and technology are a huge part of our modern outreach and I applaud him for modernizing himself with current times. People want to feel connected to their President. He is no longer just a face in a book somewhere on the east coast. People want recognition from a higher power, and since religion has (statistically) degenerated in a sense (less people are going to church), those people want a great leader with a familiar face. Obama delivers all of that. He's funny, (as the correspondents dinner showed us), he's serious and compassionate (as the Tucson/Aurora shootings showed us), and he is generally adapted to meet the needs of all citizens of the US.....if they give him the chance. I will not even acknowledge those people who say "Well I can't support Obama because he's black, or because he's a democrat" because those people (shout out to Ann Romney) are the source of the problem. Who cares what color he is or what party he is ENDORSED by. We need to start focusing on the man again instead of the party or office being held. Until the Republicans and Democrats can learn to get along, the battle will continue. And Democrats will continue to hold the upper hand until Republicans can learn to modernize their platform.
BOOM.

Outline of Factors of Corruption

After reading both the article by Treisman, and the chapter by Lambsdorff, it is more clear as to what causes corruption. Although Lambsdorff offers a few more causes, both him and Treisman tend to agree on some causes of perceived corruption. Due to the fact that there are many potential causes of corruption (some of them interweaving), I will focus on their best argument, as well as their weakest argument. In both articles, potential causes for corruption are as follows: gender, culture, geography, population size, plurality voting, GDP, government structure, etc. I find that the most compelling argument presented by both authors is the fact that democracies with a free press tend to have a lower rate of perceived corruption. I find that the weakest argument presented by both Treisman and Lambsdorff is their gender argument, due to the fact that it is historically biased, as well as currently untestable.

            Democracies with a free press tend to have a lower rate of perceived corruption. However, this does not readily apply to every democracy. Treisman states that the democracy in question must have been slowly developed over time, and it must have historical standing. For example, Russia would not fit into this category due to the fact that it is a new democracy, and hasn’t had time to establish and relieve itself from communist persuasion. The notion of a free press is also important to this argument. I believe that one of the main factors that can lower corruption is that of a free press. Although press and media can often be biased, most democratic leaders or politicians don’t want their corrupt deals broadcasted for the whole country to see. Free press is a huge deterrent for corruption. Media backlash can ruin their career, family, and reputation. Free press often scares politicians in a democracy away from corruption. In countries where free press is banned, or not established, it is easier for corrupt politicians to slide underneath the public radar, which has a positive correlation with corruption.  I find this to be Treisman’s and Lambsdorff’s best argument because it is the most robust in its category.  The results are fairly clear and need little manipulation beyond measurement of error and individual biased responses to questions.

            I find the authors weakest argument for cause of corruption to be the gender argument. Treisman and Lambsdorff both mention the fact that governments with a percentage of women to be less corrupt. Although women are often publically seen as more compassionate and trustworthy, I don’t follow this argument. It is historically biased due to the fact that most past governments were dominated by only men. Once the women’s rights movement began to pick up speed, women were slowly introduced into global politics. One problem with using women as a deterrent for corruption is the fact that it isn’t comparable to past governments. There has yet to be a country ran solely by women. If there was such a country, it could be compared to a country run completely by men, and then their corruption rates compared. I also think that there are other factors that could make up for the decline in corruption (as seen in countries with women as officials). Things such as introduction of a free press, technological advances, introduction of new laws, etc would have to be observed to make sure that they aren’t the ones to cause the decline in corruption. Although it is a good theory, there is no way to measure or evaluate the gender argument. Until it is scientifically proven that women are genetically less prone to corruption, this argument can’t stand among the ranks of other well  known causes of corruption.

            In conclusion, both authors offer valid potential causes for corruption. However, some of them have a greater value and provide more evidence than others. I find that democracies with a free press probably deter more corruption than that of a government with women.