With the election season now in full swing and Sarah Palin still being assaulted in the media and even by the Women’s Center on Lehigh’s campus, I thought it would be time to set the record straight on just who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for. Hopefully, I will also put to rest some myths along the way.

Sarah Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, in 1964. Her family moved to Alaska shortly thereafter. She attended Wasilla High School, where she was head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and point guard of the school’s state championship basketball team. In 1984, she finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant and won Miss Congeniality. She also won a college scholarship. In 1987, she graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She married Todd Palin the next year. Todd works in the oil industry on the North Slope and owns a small commercial fishing business.

Sarah entered politics in 1992 with a run for Wasilla City Council. She says she decided to run because she was afraid the new sales tax revenue would not be spent wisely. She won the race and immediately killed a measure to close Wasilla’s bars two hours earlier. She did this even though she was a member of a church that was against the drinking of alcohol. After winning a reelection bid in 1995, Sarah decided to run for mayor in 1996. She defeated a three-term incumbent mayor on a platform of cutting wasteful spending and lowering taxes. One of her first acts as mayor was to cut her own salary. She cut property taxes in the city by 75%, and made many city improvements while cutting unneeded spending. In 1999, she defeated the same opponent with a whopping 74% of the vote and was subsequently elected president of Alaska’s Conference of Mayors.

In 2002, Sarah sought the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, but lost. Governor Frank Murkowski appointed Palin the chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. She resigned from the committee in 2004, citing a lack of ethics among fellow Republican members. She filed formal complaints against two fellow Republicans, one of whom was the state party chair. The governor did not take her complaints seriously, so in 2006 she decided to run against him. She defeated the incumbent governor from her own party in the primary and then beat a former governor in the general election. Both of the men against whom Palin filed the original complaint were found guilty and subsequently fined. She became the first female and youngest governor in Alaska’s history. She is also the first Alaskan governor to be born after Alaska became a state. Governor Palin’s first legislative action was to push through a bipartisan ethics reform bill. She put the state jet on eBay and later sold it privately because she did not need it. She championed the oil and natural gas pipeline and secured the funding and permissions required to link the pipeline through Canada to the lower 48 states. In two submitted budgets, Governor Palin has cut $523 million in spending from the Alaska construction budget alone. In 2008, revenues to the state of Alaska doubled to $10 billion and there is no state sales tax or income tax. Also, citizens of the state of Alaska each received $1200 last year as a share of oil revenues from the state.

Governor Palin is a reformer, traditionalist, and conservative. She is committed to doing what she believes to be right, and does so regardless of who she angers along the way. She has stepped on the toes of Democrats and Republicans alike in Alaska, to the benefit of the people she represents. However, not everyone likes her. This month, her approval rating fell to 82%, which happens to be only four times as high as the approval rating for Congress. She stands for lower taxes, less spending, and energy independence. Who would know more about energy policy than the governor of the state that produces 20% of our energy? She is the most qualified person in public office today to talk about how to solve our energy crisis. Sarah Palin supports the surge; her oldest son deployed to Iraq just last week. She is solidly pro-life, having chosen to give birth to a child she knew would have Down syndrome.

At least now we know where the Women’s Center’s priorities lie. They lie not with the advancement of women, but with the advancement of liberalism. If a venue like the Women’s Center cannot support a woman with as impressive a resume as Palin’s, I question the need for their existence. Obviously, Governor Palin should be judged on the issues just like every other candidate. If that was happening, then I would still question the need for the Women’s Center, as their goals will have been accomplished. It is ironic that it took a chauvinistic Republican male (sense the sarcasm) to defend the female vice-Presidential nominee from attacks incurred at the Women’s Center. It took a sexist conservative to defend the only woman in the race based on her merits, qualifications, and views on the issues. Maybe I should run the Women’s Center; women would get a fairer shake.

Myths about Sarah Palin

Myth #1: Sarah Palin tried to censor books in the public library.

Answer: There was never any request made to remove any books from the library, it was a simple inquiry by then-mayor Palin to the librarian.

Myth #2: Sarah Palin improperly took a $58 per diem allowance while she lived at home.

Answer: While the legislature is not in session; Governor Palin works from her office in Anchorage. Instead of taking the allowance for hotels as well, she drives 50 miles to her home in Wasilla. She is well within her rights to take the travel allowance. Her gubernatorial expenses are only 80% of those of the previous governor.

Myth #3: Sarah Palin actually did support the “bridge to nowhere”.

Answer: While Governor Palin did run for governor supporting the bridge, she was responsible for killing the bridge once she became governor. An anti-Ted Stevens, Democratic website actually credits Palin with stopping Stevens’ pork project.

Myth #4: Governor Palin is too inexperienced, and therefore unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Answer: Sarah Palin held elected office five years before Barack Obama. She has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined. In fact, she has more executive experience than Barack Obama has legislative experience. She has run a town, a state energy commission, a state with a $10 billion budget, and a small business with her husband. Barack Obama has run for President for two years. It’s quite sad that the Republicans’ vice-Presidential nominee is more qualified than the Democrats’ Presidential nominee. True, she does not have foreign policy experience. Of course, neither did Presidents Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, to name a few. Since foreign policy is John McCain’s strong suit, and he is the one who will be President, I am not too worried about the lack of foreign experience.

As August 20, 1968 turned into August 21, Czechoslovakia was overrun by Russian tanks, and the puppet Communist regime was reined in by the granddaddy of Communist states. The Prague Spring was over, and the reforms of Alexander Dubček, which President Gorbachev later copied for his famous perestroika and glasnost reforms that helped cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, were reversed.

As the fortieth anniversary of this historic event has just passed, the Czech Republic and its neighbors are again wary of Russian power. Due to the two countries’ missile-defense deals with the United States, Russia threatened the Czech Republic and Poland over the summer. They followed that with the recent invasion of Georgia. As the Czech Republic and all of Eastern Europe reminisces during this time of historical solemnity, they are hoping it does not have implications for the future. In the midst of this pivotal point, it is worth reliving the story of the past as the Czech Republic deals with the present and looks to the future.

This past June, I, along with 14 other American students and young professionals, had the opportunity to travel to the Czech Republic. Our host was Oldřich “Olda” Černý, who founded the Prague Security Studies Institute after serving as the National Security Advisor and Director General of the Czech Foreign Intelligence Service for President Václav Havel.

Even though Prague used to be the capital of the Holy Roman Empire and the Czech Republic has been called the “Crossroads of Europe,” I knew little of the illustrious past of this historic country until my recent trip. Due to bouts with Nazism and Communism over most of the twentieth century, much of the world has forgotten the earlier, brighter chapters in Czech lore. During this time of remembrance though, the Czech Republic is again rising to prominence. After years of experiencing slavery and human rights abuses, the Czech Republic has grown into one of the world’s premier defenders of freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Václav Havel, the playwright-turned-President, receives a lot of the credit for this transformation and deservedly so. However, a lesser known character also deserves credit for directing the Czech Republic’s real-life theatrical production.

Olda is so unassuming that it took me a while to fully grasp the important role he played in the reformation of the Czech Republic and he is so humble that once I did, he would not really admit it to me.

Olda is the epitome of a great man who had greatness thrust upon him. His whole life has been shaped by decisions he made in doing what was right in the face of the evils of Communism. Without the external influence of Communism, he would have been perfectly content minding his own business rather than rerouting a nation. He is the ultimate reluctant leader. That, as Plato pointed out long ago, is the hallmark of the ideal leader and is probably why Olda has had such an influence on the Czech Republic and the world.

Life for Olda was hard. His father spent time in a Nazi prison camp before he was born. In 1950 his father was whisked away by the KGB to the harshest Communist camp in Eastern Slovakia. He died there in 1956, when Olda was only ten. Due to his father’s activities, Olda was blacklisted by the Communist regime and should not have even been allowed to attend the “gymnasium,” or secondary school. However, in the thaw that led to Mr. Dubček’s reforms,, Olda was admitted to Charles University. He even secured a grant to study English at Newcastle University in England.

After graduating from the Faculty of Philosophy at Charles University, Olda served in the army, got a job with a publishing house, got married, and had 2 children.

Despite its ordinary appearance, Olda’s life was still not easy. Twice the KGB tried to recruit him. The first time he was interrogated he was apprehensive because the KGB was, as he said, “a totally incomprehensible organization.” Looking back, the interrogations were pretty systematic. As Olda explained, they consisted of “threats, promises, threats, offers, threats, enticements…” But before encountering the brutality of the KGB, they are a mystery.

He would not give in, however. As he said, “Something inside of me surprisingly held out and I just wasn’t able to do it. I knew life would be easier and so on.”

He says, “It took six months until they finally realized I was a completely useless case.”

Being confident after turning the KGB down the first time, Olda said he was “brazen” during the second interrogation in 1977 by a separate branch of the KGB. The KGB did not take kindly to his behavior, and the next day Olda was fired from his publishing job. It took him until 1985 to find another one.

It was during this time that Olda became “more vigorously” involved in dissident activity. He “went to demonstrations and distributed banned books and petitions,” but he never really considered himself “a great dissident.” Even though he worked as a freelance translator of American and British literature and theater producer, he did not consider this work anything more than a way to provide for his family.

There never was a large dissident movement in the Czech Republic, not even after the Russian invasion. Olda recalled, “There was no uprising, there was passive resistance on a mass scale particularly during the first week of the occupation, then it gradually began to erode, the country was heading toward the bleak 20 years of ‘normalization’.”

There were a number of reasons for this lack of opposition. “Unlike in Poland, the dissidents in Czechoslovakia presented a very small group,” Olda said. “It was much easier to be a dissident in a bigger town where people helped each other than a dissident in the countryside where you stuck out. There were several coordinating groups that sometimes overlapped. Some of them were infiltrated by informers.”

As time went on, Olda started making some important connections. He already knew Václav Havel. “I met him ages ago when I was still a student at the gymnasium,” he explained. “I loved his first play, and I invited him for a cup of coffee.” Eventually, he met all the important dissidents. He said, “Prague is a small town and if you move in certain circles you eventually meet everybody.”

Olda did not work with President Havel as a dissident, but in 1989 that began to change. He said, “During the ‘Velvet Revolution’ I ran errands for him, et cetera.”

Then, after the so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’ (as the Czechs are apt to call it), Olda reluctantly joined President Havel’s team. After refusing the first time, Olda became President Havel’s National Security Advisor, a position he held until the split of Czechoslovakia.

After the split, Olda was the only high-level advisor President Havel retained. He was given the title of Director General of the Czech Foreign Intelligence Service, and his task was to construct an intelligence agency. Ironically, after twice refusing the KGB’s coercive overtures to join their intelligence team, Olda became the founder of the intelligence community of the new Czech nation. According to American Ambassador Richard Graber, today this community has blossomed into an agency that can provide the US with valuable intelligence in the War on Terror.

Upon his resignation from his intelligence post in 1998, Olda was ready to rid himself of politics. However, President Havel had other ideas. He asked Olda to be the Executive Director of his Forum 2000 Foundation. Again, Olda reluctantly accepted the post. He only planned on staying for six months, but today, ten years later, he is still there. In 2001, he also created the Prague Security Studies Institute, a sister organization to Forum 2000. Today he serves as its Executive Director.

The two organizations are connected in their pursuit of spreading freedom and human rights, but they are different. Olda explained, “Forum 2000 is more broadly oriented in its focus (globalization in its all negative and positive aspects, human rights, inter-faith dialogue, outreach programs, Water and the Middle East project, etc.). PSSI began as a purely educational institution related to security issues that over time developed into a think tank represented on the international scene.”

As Executive Director of both organizations, Olda sees his work as a continuation of his efforts in building a Czech Republic and a world that recognizes both freedom and human rights. This is the work he began under Communism and continued in an official capacity since its fall.

Despite all the difficulties the Communists presented to Olda, he denies that the effects of Communism were all bad. He recognizes that the difficulties he faced shaped his character and prepared him to rescue the Czech Republic in its time of need. For example, he said, “when I was fired from my job in the publishing house and had to freelance to make ends meet, it taught me how to swim and improvise, which was a great advantage to have after 1989. Lots of people were too much used to someone else making their decisions for them. Not my case.”

It is hard even for Olda to speculate how his life would have been different if he grew up in a democratic country. My hunch is that he would not have chosen the type of life that doing the right thing under a Communist regime forced him to do. “But,” Olda said, “when I look back at my life so far, I am not sorry.” Then, in typical understatement, he added, “it is quite an interesting and eventful story.”

It is also a story that is inspiring others to do great things.

As a student, Bara Holkova worked with Olda through both the Forum 2000 Foundation and PSSI. “Olda is a great person with great stories, amazing experience in both professional and personal life and admirable knowledge about many subjects. I have just recently realized that it is an honor to work with Olda, since one can learn a lot from him.”

Olda inspired Bara to make an impact on the world. She said, “Once I worked in the Forum 2000 Foundation, I believe I will always be looking for a job where I can at least try to make a difference.” She has already begun to do so. She has worked with People in Need, one of the largest nonprofit organizations in the Czech Republic, as a Financial Advisor in Amman, Jordan from March 2007-April 2008.

Olda is proud of the hundreds of young people that he and his organizations have touched over the years, and students like these are what keep him going.

The more students Olda inspires to act like him the better the Czech Republic’s chances are of counteracting Russia’s negative influence in the region that has a positive influence of its own.

Does one’s partisan biases have root in their quasi-predestined role in higher education? That is to say, do Lehigh’s conservative students tend to accept the so-called social inequalities that Lehigh’s left-leaning students often cite within the institution itself? Does the role of Lehigh, as a producer of high-grossing graduates, work to season a new-bred upper class, and if so, should we feel guilty about our role within said system?

The role of an elite university in moderating its concessional perks has long been a matter of contention in higher academia. No doubt, as the presupposed 35th best university in the nation, Lehigh ranks among the top schools for graduate performance and undergraduate selectivity – two rational hallmarks of a quality institution. Nonetheless, students at Lehigh are nearly wholly unaware of how their experience truly correlates with their potential experience at another, more “mainstream” university with significantly higher matriculation rates, (such as Penn State, et cetera). That is to say, we know what we live because we live it.

Nevertheless, transfer students often provide a fairly accurate litmus test as to how the whole-package university experience can comparatively be measured against another institution of higher education. Having spoken with several transfers with respect to their past and present experiences in a collegiate setting, it has come to my attention that the hypotheses regarding a university’s role in society closely toe the line with the inorganic class conflict that arises within the university’s system itself. How the students cope with the Lehigh microcosm largely impacts their partisan biases beyond their societal role.

Consider, for a moment, what the Lehigh Experience means for you, dear reader. As freshmen, you have emphasis placed on the celebration of your accomplishments thus far, with a set tone as to what the odds of your successful completion of Lehigh really mean. The societal ramifications of a Lehigh degree are subject to their own brand of institutional research, provided by Career Services, who has ensured that, upon graduation, you will likely enter your field with advantages. Your work at Lehigh is complementary both to your intellect and your resume.

Notwithstanding, tomorrow’s future leaders are entitled to top-notch facilities. Despite the persistent culture of cynicism present both in this news journal, and Lehigh’s official student news bi-weekly, The Brown & White, where students such as myself find everything and anything to be detestably frustrating, in the grand scheme of things, life isn’t so bad. We have teams of individuals at beck and call, renovating and repairing facilities, holding our hand through the job search and application process, feeding us in what fifty years ago would be an unimaginable variety, and entertaining us with a roster of speakers, presenters, performances, and other options for making the most of ones’ time. There are, in fact, so many simultaneous activities taking place on Lehigh’s campus that attending and digesting every one is beyond impossible.

Likewise, in the vein of other elite universities, Lehigh trains its students that second chances, extensions, and character-based social promotion are to be expected. This strongly correlates with the ambition-driven young upwardly-mobile professional lifestyle that so many of Lehigh’s graduates will enter. The nature of the oft-referred “good-old-boy” system retains some occasional pull in the course of completion with a smattering of Lehigh students. To establish some degree of reference for this posited educational aristocracy, one may reference The Chronicle of Higher Education – an article entitled “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education,” by William Deresiewicz.

So what exactly does this have to do with partisan bias? General tenets of all vintages of conservatism tend to disregard social inequality, believing it to be a product of the individual, not the system. Consequently, more “progressive,” or liberal, students tend to believe that the social environment largely impacts individuals, and that the environment is ultimately culpable. (Often, the left will attack environments made of people, such as corporations, in a quixotic move meant to confuse those who have forgotten the simple fact that corporations are ultimately an amalgam of hard-working people.)

These considerations at hand, a conservative student would turn a blind eye to accusations of social inequality on the basis of sexual, gender, or racial diversity as these issues are little impacted by the actions of those who raise their voices. That is to say, while student activist groups make lots of noise, the informed students know that real progress is made behind closed doors, not outside locked ones, and that topical band-aid solutions are intended to placate the left for the purpose of perpetuating that which takes place behind the proverbial scenes.

All the same, a left-leaning student would have an inherent sense of guilt about their position. Feeling that the environment is above the student (likely true), rather than adapting to the environment for self-improvement, the student will work to bring the environment down to their presupposed level, by working towards the windmill of social justice, stabbing at it with pitchforks while the rest of us create tangible progress.

To better illustrate the point at hand, two scenarios will be painted. The vignette with whom the readers’ sympathies lie likely mirrors their own social outlook, and consequently, their political bias.

Consider Student Alex. Alex sees success as a measure of personal flexibility; to which end, fiscal liquidity and personal networked mobility hold high regard. Regardless of the means from which Alex came, or the secondary school from which Alex graduated, s/he now comes to Lehigh equipped with the normative roster of extracurricular activities, awards, and advanced placement credit. Nothing over the top, nothing lacking – your average student.

Alex is proud that Lehigh offers such expansive facilities, and is working to build new ones. Alex splits his/her time between schoolwork, occasional nightlife, and a healthy balance of extracurricular activities, one or two of which s/he might take an executive board role in during junior or senior year. Leadership, stability, and pragmatism dominate Alex’s mindset, and while s/he regularly hears student complaints about this and that, Alex realizes that there are bigger things to worry about – namely, his/her future.

Consider Student Pat. Pat, like Alex, came from the same normative distribution of means and secondary education. Pat also holds the median in advanced placement credit, awards, and other post-secondary fodder that pads the application and makes students attractive to the school of their choice. Pat, like Alex, is also involved in his/her organizations. However, rather than leadership, Pat wants the greater good of the group to come first – namely, awareness.

Pat is frustrated that schools like Lehigh have such large endowments, yet continue to offer marginal financial aid packages to so-called disenfranchised students, such as ethnic minorities. Pat volunteers his/her time in student activist groups, such as The Rainbow Room, Break the Silence, the Progressive Student Alliance and The Women’s Center. Pat’s focus is less on his/her degree, less on his/her resume credentials, and more on the very act of learning itself. Pat puts the acquisition and accessibility of knowledge on the forefront. Pat considers Alex to be a “tool.”

Pat and Alex concurrently attend Lehigh. Both have their future planned – one craves success in the more grand-narrative sense of the term, (fiscal and social liquidity), while the other, frustrated by the nature of Lehigh’s push for “useful graduates,” seeks the elimination of so-called social injustices to ultimately improve his/her own weakened sense of self worth. One loves the school for what it is, and one loves the school for what s/he wants it to be.

The case seems to be that everyone is aware of the underlying fabric of what makes Lehigh University. A large segment of students feel a sense of guilt for what they have, and occasionally immerse themselves in short-term experiential forms of torture under the banner of social “awareness,” such as sleeping on the lawn of the University Center, on a cardboard box, to mimic a highly specific part of homelessness. Another segment looks at these students, understands the value in what they do, but is also aware of the economic and social ironies that undermine such events, (like the economic fact that most homeless are undereducated).

Members of that second segment, the Alexes of Lehigh, aren’t unaware of so-called economic and social inequalities – they just don’t care to fix them at this juncture in their life. They see their own upwardly-mobile career path as an eventual means to an end, despite the catcalls from the socially proactive students that Lehigh undergraduates must spread “awareness” to the unenlightened. In short, those who spread awareness aren’t creating new waves among anyone other than themselves. Those who criticize the yuppies for being so self-absorbed are, in a sense, the most self-absorbed of all insofar as they create “awareness” exclusively for each other on a visceral audio/visual daily experience.

To be fair, the Pats of Lehigh are correct in their assumption that the Alexes of Lehigh don’t always learn for the sake of learning, and absorb education in a purely pragmatic fashion. Likewise, so many of the Alexes have grown overly comfortable in their launch vehicle that they fail to watch the machinations of the world during their trajectory to success. It is an unfortunate byproduct that so many who are successful then wish to hoard their success, rather than share it with the next generation.

In conclusion, it may be proposed that the political partisan biases of Lehigh students may tie closely to their complacency with the nature of Lehigh as a prestigious academic institution. In either case, the sense and sensibilities of either contingent, (the Pats and Alexes) tend to often overlook each other’s points of view. In doing so, they remove the most important, unilateral component of a college education. That is, the free and open exchange of ideas.

Sometimes, convincing someone to cast their vote for you is quite challenging. I learned this in those intense middle school elections of simpler days now long past. If it weren’t for Sarah and her seemingly endless supply of Jolly Rancher lollipops things might be different. Those grape ones were so tasty! As I quickly learned, elections can be tricky business if you don’t have the required political or sugar capital.

Politicians have learned this too. Unlike myself, though, they had sneaky solutions to the bombardment of proverbial Jolly Ranchers that they faced. Candy didn’t taste as good when it came from a pedophile, or a pervert, or a womanizer. This was the good old politics of the past. Today, due to those pesky reporters, mudslinging must at least have some basis in fact. Nonetheless, some of today’s “leaked” stories can carry just as much bite as the politics of old.

Now you may not have many more elections ahead of you, but certainly you will be fighting for a wife or a husband, a job, a promotion, an apartment, or really anything else. And when you know you can’t beat your opponent based on your own merits, your best bet is to learn from the politicians. Here are the five lessons you can take to heart when considering how to defeat your opponent, tried and tested by politicians of every political party:

1. Your opponent has broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Nowadays, this attack probably wouldn’t even matter to the public. Other than number six, breaking the other nine commandments is basically cool. Stealing, adultery, false witness, coveting your neighbor’s spouse, and not keeping the Sabbath holy are all fairly common. But back in 1844 this was serious. James Polk’s campaign told voters that Henry Clay had indeed “broken every one of the Ten Commandments,” and that “his debaucheries… [are] too disgusting to appear in public print.” Nevertheless, Clay still won 48 percent of the popular vote. The lesson: this probably isn’t the best way to attack your opponent – today this could be a net positive.

2. Your opponent is a pimp, or his mother is a prostitute.

These two attacks are obviously radically different, though a combination of the two would be rather disgusting. I digress. These political punches were actually counters to each other during the lovely campaign of 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Jackson supporters accused Adams of “providing entertainment” for Russian Czar Alexander I, and later Adams supporters called Jackson’s mother “a common prostitute.” Jackson ended up winning 56 percent of the popular vote. The lesson: It’s better to be the son of a prostitute than to be a pimp.

3. Your opponent is a coward.

Franklin Pierce was a general during the Mexican-American war. Being from New Hampshire, he wasn’t used to the heat, and he collapsed from heat prostration during a battle. When it came time to run for President, Franklin Pierce was named “the Fainting General” by opponents. Even with that stigma on his name, he still won all but four states. Americans have since learned not to tolerate military cowardice, and did not elect John Kerry in 2004 after his bravery in the military was questioned by some of his fellow swift-boat veterans. The lesson: if you are going to join the U.S. armed forces, show no fear.

4. Your opponent is just ugly.

As could be expected in the turbulent years leading up to the Civil War, the North-South divide caused some heated discussion. As a Northerner, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a favorite politician in the South. In fact, he won a majority of the electoral college without even being on the ballot in many southern states. It’s easy to understand why: according to the Houston Telegraph, he was the “most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame”. The lesson: let your opponent’s ugliness work on its own, pointing it out won’t help you much.

5. Your opponent has an illegitimate child.

This rumor about Senator McCain was brought up during the Bush-McCain primaries in 2000. McCain’s daughter Bridget was actually adopted from an orphanage in Bangladesh by McCain and his wife Cindy. But by anonymous polling, the Bush campaign suggested that McCain was Bridget’s biological father. Bush then went on to win the Republican primary. Thankfully in the general election, Bush didn’t need such smear tactics: they just hid a couple thousand ballots from Floridians and then paid off the Supreme Court. The lesson: smear tactics are great, but bribes and sneaky cheating can be just as effective.

Sources:

“A Historical Perspective on Presidential Campaigns”. Dr. Ken Stevens, 2003. http://www.his.tcu.edu/Frog&Globe/SiteArchives/Stevens-Elections.htm

(Quotes used for examples of mudslinging 1-4 were from this document)

“The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign”. Richard Davis. The Boston Globe, March 21st, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

(Information on example of mudslinging 5 were from this article)

To impose or not to impose, that is the question. Whether it is more beneficial to let people decide to be responsible for their environment and surroundings or to force it upon them by taking drastic measures that affect the entire population directly.

It is a difficult question to answer, whether or not I am opposed to the removal of trays from our dining facilities. Yes, it saves water and waste – but at what cost? Are the benefits gained in the long run worth the sacrifice now? I cannot say that I know just how polluted the environment actually is, and how much my everyday actions, whether I am conscious of it or not, affect the environment around me.

My family raised me under the impression that preserving the earth’s energy is the good and right thing to do, but not at the expense of the modern conveniences that allow me to stay productive, healthy, and happy. If I need to see, the room light is turned on (yes, I turn it off when I leave). If I need to write, I use whatever paper is necessary (yes, it’s double sided). If it is unbearably hot outside, the air-conditioner is on (yes, I turn it off at night). If I need a tray to carry my plate, cup, utensils, and soup, then I use a tray. But surely, it would not be that much of an inconvenience to make several trips to carry these things. So this is where I am torn, as is arguable with almost all modern conveniences – are these things, in fact, a necessary convenience, or merely a reflection of our laziness?

People are inherently lazy. Period. I am too. But in my opinion, if raised properly, people learn how to be responsible and overcome that laziness in order to do what is right. Recently, I was at a large pizza lunch in Zoellner. There were 15 pizzas, 8 containers of soda, 50 hungry people, and only one small wastebasket next to the door. Fess up, we’ve all done it – squish, balance, and contort our paper plates and cups until the recepticle is overflowing because we are too lazy, too busy, or too ignorant to dispose of them in another trash can; then it becomes someone else’s problem. I made a bold decision that day – if the people wouldn’t go to another trash can, I’d bring another trash can to them. I found a much bigger trash can in the hallway of Zoellner and personally brought it into the room before the wastebasket started overflowing. After the crowd started dwindling down, I began to clean up the boxes of pizza and wipe down the tables. One of the freshmen asked me why I was wiping down the table, and I told her – because WE, the organization of 50 people having this lunch, were responsible for the mess , therefore it was OUR obligation to clean it up – a simple lesson I learned a long time ago from “Barney & Friends.” I asked her to help dry. She informed me that there was no point. “How do you know someone else isn’t just going to clean them later? In that case, you’re just wasting your time.” I rolled my eyes and shook my head.

I ask myself, in this age of globalization, how can we expect people who are not respectful of their local environment to be respectful of their global environment? We are quick to think of things on large scales, passing legislature on chemical waste reduction and car-exhaust regulations and the like; so willing to throw funding at alternative sources of energy. We are quick to hold events to help our “global” environment and “global” neighbors in far away countries, but what about our local environment and our local neighbors who we encounter everyday? How many people pick up a loose piece of paper on the floor and place it in the recycle bin? How many people shovel the snow off the sidewalk in front of their house after the first snowfall? How many people help the freshman who doesn’t know where his class is? Or do we just walk by, and let the frustrations of life get the better of us – “Someone else will do it; I don’t have the time.” I myself am guilty of this.

In high school, my classmates and I frequently debated whether or not service hours should be required of students. Some students cited the Bible – saying that acts without love are empty, and that a lack of dedication and enthusiasm among students being forced to participate would lead to a less dedicated, less enthusiastic service ministry. Others argued that if students were forced to do community service as a graduation requirement, more students would discover the satisfaction that comes from serving others. I see merits in both of these arguments. I’m torn.

As I am with trays! I believe that it is important to understand the reasons why tray use needs to be limited, and I certainly don’t believe in wasted food and resources. The lack of trays will certainly discourage students from taking as much food, but in turn, it seems that we are also discouraging students from EATING as much. Yes, as a campus we should make efforts to consume less, but there are individuals who I believe should first make it a priority to CONSUME MORE! Food is not a convenience – IT IS A NECESSITY. And, let’s recall, I am inherently lazy. I have a medical condition that puts my appetite off, even when I desperately need the nutrients. When my appetite is off, I don’t feel hungry. When I’m not hungry, I’m not going to make a bunch of extra trips and wait in long serving lines to get food, and I refuse to look like an idiot trying to balance a bunch of loose things in my arms in one trip. So, I’m seriously contemplating just buying myself a tray – it is that much of a convenience.

At 4:00 on a leafy-golden late October afternoon, a group of professors from Lehigh’s business college will gather for drinks and light refreshments to celebrate the career of Eli Schwartz, an economics professor at Lehigh from 1954 to 1991. The event (the final details of which are still being worked out) is called a festschrift, a word taken from two German words meaning “celebration or feast” and “writing.” Professor Schwartz, who is now 87, will be toasted and roasted by fellow professors, and he will receive a handsome book, the contents of which are essays in economics, written in his honor by respected economists on topics related to or of interest to Professor Schwartz.

One of the organizers of this event is Professor Robert Thornton, a statistics and labor economics expert who has taught at Lehigh for 38 years. The assembling of this material and planning the event is a labor of professional pride and affection. Other Lehigh old-timers, Harriet Parmet and Rich Aronson, have also been involved in the project. The festschrift expresses the highest traditions of academic excellence and fellowship, and I regret to say that such events these days are far too rare. But it will be a fine moment for Lehigh. I am sure President Gast will be there, for this is an event not to be missed.

None of you reading this will have ever heard of Professor Schwartz, but he is, by any standard, an intelligent and original eccentric. All of these aspects of his character will be explored in the book written in his honor and in the comments from his peers.

Lehigh is not over-heavy with scholars of Eli’s stature. Those contributing essays for this book written in his honor, titled Variations in Economic Analysis, will include Lehigh professors Aronson, Parmet (emeritus), Nicholas Balabkins (emeritus), and (of course) Robert Thornton. Other contributors, in addition to these friends of a lifetime, will include George Borts, former editor of the “American Economic Review” (a leading academic economic journal), John Hilley, an economic advisor to President Clinton, Murray Weidenbaum, former chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, and Robert Solow and Harry Markowitz, both of whom won Nobel Prizes for their work in Economics. This is an awesome list of contributors and this in itself testifies to the professional standing of Professor Schwartz.

He was recognized from his earliest teaching days as a provocative, intellectually challenging professor, and during his years at Lehigh he not only taught advanced courses in economics and finance, but he also wrote or edited seven books and published over 50 articles.

The event is also a testimony to Professor Thornton and the tone of Lehigh’s Economics department. It is collegial – constructive rather than carping. Like the ubiquitous Richard Aronson, they are always seeking each other out for luncheon meetings, the meetings being of secondary interest to just hanging out together talking shop. The department seeks to do well by its students and the professors actually like to talk to students. When the Business School needed an interim dean, Tom Hyclak, an expert on labor economics, was selected. Professor Frank Gunter, now on leave, spent two years as a colonel in the U.S. Army serving in Iraq.

Professor Thornton himself is one of Lehigh’s wonderful little secrets. He is among a handful of Lehigh professors who can still translate Latin accurately, due to a Jesuit high school and comprehensive undergraduate course of study at Xavier University in Ohio. Added together, he studied Latin for eight years and Greek for six. He was a varsity baseball player (a pitcher) and he still plays handball regularly. He has taught some of those still working here, including Athletic Director Joe Sterrett. In the economics trade, professors often team up to publish a scholarly paper, and Thornton is eagerly sought out as a partner. He’s good, and everyone in the department knows it.

Thornton is also a talented and meticulous editor, and he has edited the Martindale Center’s annual journal for years. He holds himself to the highest of standards: the papers piled high in his cluttered office are presided over by the statues of his august literary predecessors – Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the muses of the theater, among others.

Both Schwartz and Thornton love to tweak the super-serious with wry absurdities. Schwartz once submitted to prestigious academic journals an essay asserting that business cycles could be explained by the permissive or non-permissive toilet training of each generation. His rejection letters never acknowledged that the thesis was intentionally nonsensical.

Likewise, Thornton, ever since his boyhood, has been writing knowingly awful verse. He once won third prize in a bad verse contest for his “Ode on a Grecian Urinal.” Of course all this foolishness is possible – for both Schwartz and Thornton – because they know the difference between good and bad.

And that, in itself, is a tradition worth preserving.

This is an important time, for the United States of America and Lehigh University alike. In fact, it is so important a time that I had difficulty deciding what topic to choose as the focal point of this issue’s article. Ultimately, I chose a topic that has affected Lehigh recently, and forms a central issue within today’s politics: conservation of resources (water in particular).

Water is used for everything in our daily lives. Water is used for washing, drinking, hydroelectric power, and other such crucial aspects of our daily lives. As such, it is a resource that must be conserved, lest it suffer a similar fate that, according to liberals, will befall many other resources.

Lehigh University Dining Services saw this problem and acted quickly and without prejudice to do what they could to help conserve the valuable resource that is water. By removing trays from the Dining Halls, they not only cut costs, but also reduced the amount of water used for dishwashing, leaving it available for other more significant uses.

Worldwide, we see that conservation of water is rapidly becoming more and more critical. Polar ice caps are melting and Antarctic ice shelves are breaking free of the Antarctic landmass. Skies are becoming cloudier and cloudier, reducing the amount of water that is available for us to use. However, the biggest culprits of all are animals.

75% of the human body is water and the percentage is comparable for other animals. As the largest animals on earth, whales have the highest water content per body. That water is essentially inaccessible for human consumption, which leaves only one question: what can we do to liberate the water?

The answer is simple: kill the whales. Aside from containing an outrageously large amount of water, dead whales serve many other practical purposes. Many whales are an excellent source of oil (not petroleum-based, but still oil and still quite useful) and the meat off a good-sized whale could feed a village for several days.

The hunting and chase of the whales would also provide a much-needed catalyst to help out a struggling economy. For certain, there might be Jonah-style experiences and situations akin to that related in the Decemberists’ Mariner’s Revenge, but all-in-all it would be a benefit to society.

While still important, all this talk about the usefulness of dead whales has strayed from the topic at hand. Water is in danger, and is a valuable resource that must be conserved. Lehigh University Dining Services sees this as a major issue; as such, this is an issue that we should not ignore. Regardless of party, regardless of race, regardless of age, we need to stand up for the rights of Water.

Election year politics always provide a tremendous amount of political banter on both sides. While following this year’s contest, I have read countless well-thought and articulate articles on the current political climate. By perusing many articles each day, representing both sides of our nation’s great left-right divide, I’ve discovered a lot about how politics really works. The insights that I’ve gained make it extremely challenging to write about any concrete political situation for several reasons. Thus far, I feel that I’ve found out a lot about how the U.S. political system currently works. In the media you’ll hear the party lines, the political commentary, and the candidate’s talking points. But that isn’t the analysis that matters. If you can see through all of the smokescreens politicians set up, there is one overarching theme: words don’t matter.

That words do not mean anything in politics isn’t a new theme, and I am hardly being original in pointing this out. For the sake of argument, let me give you two examples: abortion and the war in Iraq. Republicans are, by-and-large, against legal abortions. They, as well as the Democrats, love to use their pro- or anti- abortion stance as a talking point. But it has been 35 years since Roe v. Wade, and what has the Republican Party seriously done on a national level about making abortions illegal? Not much. For religious reasons, many Republicans feel that it is an imperative to produce pro-life candidates for national office. In the primaries, Mitt Romney did his best to adapt (flip-flop) his position on legalized abortion. Similarly many Democrats, such as Pennsylvania’s junior senator Bob Casey, have tapped the pro-life voting pool by being Democrats who support restrictions on abortion rights. Some politicians may actually care about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. But few will rank it as more important than staying in office, and even fewer will specifically devote political capital to the cause.

On the other side, there is the war in Iraq. War is inherently awful, and it is a sad statement of reality that, even for a nation like ours, war is a necessity in some situations. Was the war in Iraq necessary? In hindsight, it probably was not. Those two facts have made the war extremely unpopular and those on the left of the political spectrum were calling for us to withdraw from a nation we had just torn apart. Democratic politicians used this to their advantage and spoke out against the war in order to raise money and obtain votes. Did any of them actually want us to withdraw? The answer to that is ‘no’. Anyone who views the world minus the influence of mind-altering drugs realizes it would be very dangerous to just pick up and leave Iraq before it is stabilized. Barack Obama has altered his stance away from that extremist view he took in the primaries. He now effectively says the same thing as everyone else: let’s win the war and get our troops out as quickly as possible. Politicians will pay lip-service to their bases by favoring immediate withdrawal; but again they fail to devote any political capital to the cause.

The fact that political actions do not follow political verbiage makes analyzing political conversations extremely difficult. Analyzing their words is great if you want to produce a work of fiction, but that hardly makes it possible to discern their true motives, and that doesn’t work well if you want to find out what the politicians are actually going to do. But suggesting that Mr. or Mrs. Politician is insincere invites attacks from all across the political spectrum. Thus, the cable news networks, talk radio, and political commentators everywhere mainly analyze a situation based on what politicians say. The media does this because it either pleases or aggravates every politically active person watching, which of course drives the ratings. Comments made every day by people like Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann purposefully highlight the divisive parts of the other side’s platform. This doesn’t provide rational analysis, but instead breeds angry comments and irrational responses.

Knowing that so many Republicans and Democrats will say whatever they need to in order to secure their popularity and office really diminishes partisan politics and its analysis. I have attacked Democrats for supporting higher taxes on the rich simply to obtain the votes of the poor, and doing so at the peril of our economy and our country’s future. But what does that attack really mean if Republicans talk about limited government in order to obtain votes, and then either do nothing about, or even aid the expansion of, our awful bureaucracy at the peril of our economy and our country’s future?

The hypocrisy of both parties is astounding. Democrats have made huge political gains by victimizing, and offering to help, the poor by going after the rich. But right now Democrats are the only ones standing in the way of offshore drilling, which would provide relief for lower-income families who are paying a significant portion of their income in transportation costs. Republicans in office all talk about hating the bureaucracy in Washington and wanting to reduce it, but they haven’t done diddlysquat about it. The best analysis of the current situation of American politics isn’t necessarily exciting, or even controversial, and it is certainly not enough to fill up the schedule of 24-hour news channels.

Finally, playing these partisan games does nothing but sharpen the divide between the ideological bases. It produces a vicious cycle where the attacks become sharper and sharper, distracting everyone from the facts on which a decision should be based. This problem has gotten so severe that humane and even reasonably intelligent discourse of politics between conservatives and liberals has become almost non-existent. Commentators on each side have become more and more brutal in their attacks on the other point of view.

Each side blames the other not just for initiating the fight, but continuing it. In the campaign so far, McCain has used some pretty nasty and devious tactics against Barack Obama. Obama has done the exact same thing to McCain. Arguing over who started it is something six-year-olds do. Both have recognized that negative campaigning is effective, and so each has used negative tactics. Both sides now love to claim the other side is full of evil, intolerant, and stupid people. Lost in the rhetoric is the fact that we are all Americans, and we all want what is best for this country. There’s just a bit of a disagreement about the best route to take. MapQuest can only get you so far.¹

So what does all this mean with respect to the election? Whoever is elected, Barack Obama or John McCain, will attempt to do what is best for the country, without giving up too many votes. It has been plain for months now that neither of these candidates are the mythical political beast who couldn’t care less about getting re-elected. But both candidates are Americans, and both candidates truly want what is best for this country. In deciding who to vote for we need to look for someone whose actions, not words, speak most strongly to a candidate who is able to serve Americans, and not his own political interests.

This year that man is a Republican. It won’t always be the case, but you don’t have to dig too deeply to find evidence that John McCain puts the collective good of America first. His time in the Vietnamese POW camp, and his refusal of early release speaks more strongly to his character and values than any combination of words can. For a full account of his story I encourage you to read Senator McCain’s first-hand account from U.S. News and World Report.² Also, McCain has opposed his party, and tried to actually pass meaningful legislation. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, as well as the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, was co-sponsored by a prominent Democratic Senator. In both cases he angered his voting base, knowing that he would eventually have a presidential primary coming up where those bills would haunt him. But it speaks to a man that has his priorities straight as a public servant: America should come first.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has only tried to differentiate himself with words. His actions so far have been so innately and brilliantly political that he has been able to use words to create the impression that he is above politics. His entire political career up until this point has been playing to the extremist portion of his party from which he gets his support, money, and volunteers. His documented connections to Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers³ show the people he will associate with for political gain. Also, his voting record in the Senate, which was ranked as the most liberal of anyone in 2007⁴, shows how he has played to the Democrat’s enthusiastic base. Only now has he moderated his views, best seen as I mentioned earlier on Iraq but also in reference to energy, taxes, and foreign policy as he attempts to win over independents. He has done all of this extremely well, and has played the political game as well as anyone. He very well may have the character and a coherent set of values on the level of John McCain. But he has not proven this yet. And the president, above all, must be someone who can make the right choice even if it’s not the popular one.

So while considering the election this November, think about the character of the two candidates. They are both intelligent, they are both capable, and they both want what is best for this country. You may disagree with Senator McCain on some issues, but, as I have proven, the candidates’ talking points matter very little. Remembering that the actual amount of meaningful legislation destined to be passed in the next four years will be very small, I hope that many of you can set aside your disagreements with McCain’s policies as I have, and vote for him in November. As the candidate who is best suited to step above politics, he is the person who America needs making the decisions that will surely have a profound impact on our future as a nation.

(Endnotes)

1. MapQuest, http://www.mapquest.com/politicalunity

2. “John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account”. John McCain. U.S. News and World Report, May 1973. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

3. “Wright Connection”. Michael Barone. National Review Online, May 24th, 2008. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU3MjJlNDgwNWNhODhmN2IwYWFjNzZmNGJiMzUwYTE

4. “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007”. Friel et al. National Journal, January 31st, 2008. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to free speech. Yet this fundamental liberty is not preserved on Lehigh’s campus. Instead, political correctness has paved the way to restrictive speech codes that govern what can and cannot be said. Of course, private universities are by no means required to adhere to the principles of free speech as outlined in the Constitution. The First Amendment merely prevents the government from abridging freedom of speech. It does not prevent private organizations from doing so. But the argument is not that Lehigh is violating any law relating to free expression – clearly it is not. Rather, the reasoning is that as an institution of higher education, it has an obligation to foster free speech in a capacity at least equal to that of the Constitution.

Lehigh’s speech code is buried within its Policy on Harassment. In part, this policy is legitimate in that it appropriately defines what would typically be considered harassment in a court of law. In fact, section 1.3 would suggest that the university fully adheres to open discussion: “Lehigh University upholds the principles of academic freedom and free speech.”ⁱ Unfortunately, subsequent sections directly contradict that mission.

For instance, section 2.1 defines what can constitute a hostile work, learning, co-curricular, social, or living environment: “when a member of the Lehigh University community or a guest is subjected to unwelcome statements, jokes, gestures, pictures, touching, or other conducts that offend, demean, harass, or intimidate.”ⁱⁱ The scope and ambiguity of this single statement enables pretty much anything that an individual says or does to be classified as creating a hostile environment if someone perceives it as such.

Section 2.1.3 provides further clarification on stereotyping: “Statements that demean people on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status can also contribute to a hostile work or educational environment.”ⁱⁱⁱ The policy even details a few examples, just in case it is not clear enough that otherwise insignificant events can be called into question. For instance, even something as benign as “to ask an older colleague why she or he hasn’t retired”^iv could constitute the basis of a hostile environment complaint.

The range of what could be considered a hostile environment is extremely unsettling. Instead of encouraging healthy debate, these policies deter students and professors alike from engaging in discussion and challenging the status quo. By Lehigh’s standards, merely asking a question could result in the threat of disciplinary action if someone finds that question to be intimidating. As absurd as it may seem, such occurrences have taken place, both at Lehigh and at other institutions facing similar challenges. Raising questions, challenging the norm, and developing a greater sense of understanding are not only innately harmless, but should be the basis for higher education and societal maturation.

A recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirms that speech codes similar to Lehigh’s could not exist at a public university. Temple University maintained a speech code with language bearing a striking resemblance to that of Lehigh’s policies. Among other things, it prohibited “generalized sexist remarks and behavior.” The opinion, DeJohn v. Temple University, upheld a decision by a federal district court that the university’s former speech code was unconstitutional.^v

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization dedicated to defending First Amendment rights in higher education. In an August 4th press release, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said that the decision “serves as unequivocal notice to university administrators across the country that the First Amendment still applies on campus.”^vi FIRE’s Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, William Creeley, commented on the ruling as having “dealt a devastating defeat to those seeking to infantilize our nation’s college students.”^vii

The Third Circuit’s opinion is a clear indication that restrictive speech codes are not tolerated at public universities. Unfortunately, the same liberties do not apply at Lehigh. But this contrast begs the question: how could a top-ranked university like Lehigh provide its students and faculty with fewer opportunities to engage in a free exchange of ideas than a public university? How is our education better off when certain words, topics, or ideas are off-limits?

Making a subject off-limits does nothing to solve the underlying issue. It is only through open discussion that all perspectives can be presented and true understanding can be achieved. To that end, it is also important to come to the realization that not everybody is going to agree. Silencing one side of the argument only serves to further hostilities. Moving beyond the Lehigh bubble, where the First Amendment reigns, individuals who are offended by the statements of others have no right to reprisal.

A college education should prepare students for the real world. It must not impede the discussion of any single point of view, even if the prevailing consensus deems that opinion to be wrong. Any effort to do so is censorship and should cause the student body to question what they are really getting: an education or indoctrination?

Lehigh’s policies, as they stand, demonstrate that the university holds little regard for an open and free exchange of ideas, instead placing higher priority on the winds of political correctness. Perhaps it is time that the administration takes a second look at the true implications of these policies and questions whether they fully embody the principles of academic freedom that the university has a responsibility to uphold.

(Endnotes)

i. http://www.lehigh.edu/~policy/university/harassment.htm

ii. Ibid.

iii. Ibid.

iv. Ibid.

v. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9573.html

vi. Ibid.

vii. Ibid.

I was looking through the Wall Street Journal the other day when I saw the headline “Black Voters Fret Over Obama.” I wondered, when I saw the title, what black voters were ‘fretting over’, so I read on. One part of the article quoted a radio host talking about Obama losing, “My audience is upset. Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots – that is how despondent they would be.”¹ Another part quoted a Democratic governor, saying that blacks need to remember that “many Democrats have lost the Presidential race in recent decades and they were white.” Apparently, black voters are concerned that if Obama loses this election it will be partly due to the racism of white voters.

Excuse my naiveté, but I have a really hard time believing that this would be the case. First of all, let us look and see exactly who is being racist. Then humor me while I digress a bit and explain why I think conservatives get the majority vote of another group of people with whom I am much more familiar.

The above article says that, according to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, 88% of blacks support Obama. If we could point out that 88% of whites support McCain, we might be able to say that racism is a factor. However, this is not the case. Instead, McCain and Obama are evenly tied across the general population of voters.² Statistically, if we are going to decide between two candidates and we have tens of millions of people voting, popular opinion should be roughly 50/50. Based on the data, it is blacks who are heavily biased.

But we should not jump to conclusions. Historically, the large majority of blacks have supported the Democratic candidate. So chances are that blacks are not supporting the Democrat because he is black, but because he is a Democrat. The only good way to see if blacks vote based on race would be to have a black person run for office as a conservative and see how many blacks vote for him. My guess is that most blacks would still vote Democrat. So the real question is: why do almost all blacks vote Democrat?

One of the major problems in this country is the miserable state of the government-run urban education system. Over half of all children entering 9th grade in urban public schools never graduate. Of those kids who do go to school often enough to show up in test results, only a small minority can read at a level considered “proficient” for their grade level. Did I mention that a large majority of the poor kids at the mercy of the government system in urban schools are black?

Isn’t it rather ironic that the Democrats have the vast majority of the vote of a statistically poor and poorly-educated demographic, and then doubly ironic that those very people are so shoddily educated because of the very government they so ardently support?

These facts tell a sad story. Many blacks have subjected themselves to the mercy of a government that promises them all kinds of ‘free’ benefits from health care to education and food (all paid for with money coerced from you and me, incidentally).

Many blacks are on the “receiving” end of this bargain largely because of deficient education, which leads to lower average incomes. The deficient education is largely the fault of the U.S. Government. If you want statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that 70% of all black fourth graders are eligible for free and reduced lunch in public schools as opposed to 24% of all white fourth graders.

There seems to be a pattern emerging. Who is exploiting whom here? A political party gets the votes of a people in a group largely through promises to meet the very needs that the government itself has encouraged or created!

Now if liberals want to berate Republicans for getting the majority vote of a particular group like working class evangelical Christians, can we pinpoint a similar pattern in which these Christians receive something from the government in exchange for their vote? I think not.

Perhaps, you say, Christians support the traditionally conservative party as part of a vast conspiracy to stuff religion and creationism down everyone’s throat. But, even if that were true (and, for the most part, it is not), it is unlikely to happen anytime soon and would be a pretty bad reason to vote conservative.

The more likely reason is just that we want freedom, and real conservative values let us have it. It is as simple as that.

Conservatives want freedom to choose the means and end recipients of our charity, and the freedom to keep what we earn. This provides the freedom to improve our homes and families before our resources go to improve someone else’s, and the freedom to choose the schools our children go to. Conservatives promise little in the way of handouts or ‘redistribution of wealth’, yet they are often supported by those who work the hardest for the least reward.

Many of these conservatives start out ‘under-privileged,’ yet work their tails off, often without paid vacations and cushioned chairs in air-conditioned offices, to have enough money to put an addition on their old house or to give their kids a couple hundred dollars to help them out from time to time.

Take it from me: working-class kids often would not think of expecting their parents to pay their way through college. They do not ask their parents for money to help with their first car to get them to their first job. Vacations for them might mean a family camping trip; not airfare to a beach complete with many hotels and dining establishments. They do not mind, however. Contrary to what some may believe, these people really live the American dream. Every cent they have, they worked for themselves and they are proud of it.

These people generally do not want any government benefits. If they do take advantage of any benefits, they are just getting back a little bit of what they have been forced to pay into the public system for years.

The working class knows how important it is to be allowed the freedom to keep that extra couple hundred dollars each year, or not worry about being taxed out of their house. They know the importance of keeping their hard-earned thousands, and would prefer to avoid sending their kids to a school with poor teaching and overly progressive ideology. They work the hardest for the least, and they want the freedom to benefit from it.

So, there it is – my observations on a couple groups who respectively support each dominant political ideology. If you have ever wondered why the working class votes for freedom while poor blacks vote for social welfare, I hope my observations make you think.

(Endnotes)

1. The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 2008

2. CBS News Poll, Sept. 4, 2008