Hope Then, Action Now

In the years 2008 and 2012, America voted two different politicians into the Presidential office to fit the fiscal, social, war-time and emotional needs of the nation. Despite the drastic differences between these election years, both of these politicians voted into office are named Barack Hussein Obama.

In party affiliation, speech style and DNA, Barack Obama is the same politician in 2012 that he was in 2008. But the similarities stop there. One only needs to look at his two different victory speeches to see that Barack Obama is a very different man and will most likely be a very different president than the man elected in 2008.

Think back to 2008. You will remember a very different America. In December of 2007, America experienced the beginnings of an economic downturn comparable to the Great Depression. Sound extreme? It sounds this way for good reason. The real estate market crashed, banks crashed, the job market crashed. Barack Obama and John McCain had the privilege of running for presidency amidst a panicking and fearful America.

What did John McCain run on? The importance of dealing with the problems of our nation first before we can even dream of helping other nations. He came before America as a veteran from Arizona- conservative guns blazing. What did Barack Obama run on? Hope. Plain and simple. He came before America bright-eyed, bushy-tailed with one term as senator under his belt.

Experience is not what America needed in 2008. In 2008, America needed someone who represented newness; a coming up from the ashes. America wanted to be able to say “We are still the greatest nation on the planet.” So America chose “hope” and “progress”- exactly what Barack Obama was promising.

Everything Obama stood for and everything America needed is evident in Obama’s 2008 victory speech. In this speech, Obama paints a picture of a new America. In order to achieve this America, Obama reminds the audience of his excitement to reach across the aisle- figuratively and literally- to get things done (9 minutes in). He then talks about the need for Americans to be willing to help each other (9:50). Obama states that it is time to get rid of the partisanship that has held back American progress (10:10). After aligning himself with Lincoln (11:00), Obama declares that “a new dawn of American leadership is at hand” (11:30). America’s newly elected President wraps up his speech with the statement that the true genius of America is her ability to change (12:30).

The speech oozes of hope. The President Elect’s optimism for the nation is not to be brushed off or taken lightly; as naive or perhaps unrealistic as Obama’s speech, goals and intentions for the nation may seem now, this is exactly what the nation wanted and desperately needed at the time.

Fast-forward four years and the political race for the presidency looks completely different. Instead of the staunchly conservative veteran from Arizona, the Republican Party chose a younger, more moderate Governor from Massachusetts. Instead of the young, hopeful activist from Chicago, the Democratic Party chose to send in a much more experienced, more liberal candidate than before. Here’s the punchline: the Democratic candidate of 2012 was the same man as in 2008. Technically.

America in 2008 was very different from America in 2012. America in 2012 is coming out of the economic crisis of 2007. Students are not expected to drop out of college if they cannot afford it. People who have lived in this country their whole lives but are not citizens are being given the opportunity to be considered legitimate and contribute to society. Health care is considered a right, not a privilege.

So why is Obama still the man for the job? He has grown with the nation. The man who gave the presidential victory speech of 2012 is a very different man from the one in 2008. Instead of emphasizing the ability to reach across the aisle, this man discussed the need to move forward no matter what. Instead of encouraging politicians to put aside their party affiliations to work together, he celebrated the ability of our nation to argue and disagree- after all, this is democracy. Instead of championing the new type of leadership entering America, he embodied it.

When considering the nation’s growth and Obama’s transformation, his politics play a role but not nearly as significant as one would think. What is so astounding about Barack Obama is that, while he has had to become a new man, he has been the man America has wanted and needed for the past two elections. One may say that this isn’t new or significant- a great majority of Presidents have received their opportunity at their second term. While this may be true, three things cannot be ignored:

1) America in 2012 looks very different from America of 2008

2) President Elect Obama in 2012 looks very different from President Elect Obama in 2008

3) Both Obamas have been exactly what the nation called upon at the time

My Right, My Duty, My Privilege

     In my last post, I put up a video called "The Ballot or the Bullet" and mentioned that I was excited to vote because I can. I want to expand on that.
     In one of his most famous speeches, Malcolm X explores the state of the nation and what he believes is necessary for the Black community to do in order to move forward. If you haven't heard it, listen to it. I don't care what race or political ideology you prescribe to- every American needs to be aware of the discussion posed by Malcolm X. Too many people are familiar with what they believe was the mentality of Dr. King. When Dr. King is discussed, he is discussed within the parameters of non-violence. While non-violence was a necessary aspect of Dr. King's message, there was a much deeper struggle being addressed that is too often ignored. Think about it: if Dr. King had a non-violent perspective, there had to be an opposing perspective. Most Americans are aware of the fact that Malcolm X was the "other." However, most believe that Malcolm X prescribed to a violent ideology. This is not true. As the title of the speech suggests, Malcolm X had a number of issues he wanted to be able to address through voting; however, if his vote was not heard, Malcolm X recognized that a gun would be a bit louder. Interestingly enough, many of the problems Malcolm X addresses in 1964 are very much still problems today.
     The existence of these issues is one of many reasons I feel it is so important to vote. If I do not treat an issue as important, how can I ever expect my representation to see it as important? I can't. My responsibility to my community and the world around me is what makes voting a duty.
     My ability to vote is what makes me excited. As an African American, I did not have the right to vote until 1870. As a woman, I did not have the right to vote until 1920. As easy it is to be angry about the years of discrimination anyone who has looked like me has endured for centuries, the fact remains: I CAN VOTE. A lot of change has had to happen in this country but change is constantly occurring. I am proud of the progress of my nation and would be doing myself and many others a disservice if I did not exercise my civic right, duty and privilege to vote. 

Because I CAN

A moment of truth: I got to vote today. Despite the snarkiness of last post on the Electoral College (I mean, let's face it, who DOESN'T get upset when talking about the Electoral College?), I am STOKED about today. Why? I am so glad you asked.
There used to be a time when someone who looked like me was not allowed to vote. No matter how broken the system may be, I put on my red, white and blue and I voted today. You want to know why? BECAUSE I CAN. And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing.

Why Vote? It's Already been Done for You

     The college campus, much like the greater United States, brings people with any number of differences together to achieve the same goal: education. This collision of differences can be seen within the friendship of my roommate and me. She is a democrat from Maryland; I am an independent from California. She is studying Chinese, Film and History; I am studying Spanish and Political Science. For all of the differences that exist between the two of us, we do have one thing in common: neither of our votes will count this Tuesday.
     And why won't they count? Despite the numerous logistical issues that exist that would prohibit our votes from counting (Florida's butterfly ballot of 2000 for example), one institutional block on voting still exists: the Electoral College.
     Don't know what the Electoral College is? You're not alone. I had to look it up too. The Electoral College is an archaic and outdated institution. The College was established by America's Founding Fathers as a bridge between tyranny of the majority and decisions being made for the people by Congress.
     In theory, the College sounds really nice. The problem is, it has the ability to (and has... four times to be exact) choose a president counter the popular vote of the American people. Remember the election of 2000? Remember Al Gore? Yeah, he actually won the popular vote. So why was Bush president for the next 8 years? That was all thanks to the Electoral College (and an excellent assist by the Supreme Court).
     According to the archives, each state chooses their electors. How? Apparently that's up to each state too. And with this fact, we find another flaw of the Electoral College: even though the College is making crucial decisions concerning the election, there is no way to keep them accountable... no one knows who they are!
     So now that we know what is logistically wrong with the Electoral College, let's talk implications. When you and I go to vote, we will not be voting for a president. Did you know that? We will actually be voting for a group of representatives (the Electoral College) whose job it is to report our vote. Because the Electoral College is meant to summarize, if you will, the votes of each state, each vote does not count as one vote. Instead, each vote becomes a part of the will of the state as a whole. For example, being a Republican in California will never make any difference in the presidential election because the population of Democrats will always outnumber the population of Republicans. Ever wonder why presidential candidates don't spend too much time trying to persuade California? It is a captured state. No matter how many loyal Republicans exist in the suburbs of California, there will always be more Democrats in the larger cities, which brings us to the next flaw of the Electoral College.
     Thanks to the Electoral College, swing states will always matter more than captured ones. For some reason, there are a few states (such as the notorious Ohio and Florida) that can't seem to get their act together. These swing states have not developed a pattern for voting for one party. They do what they want. Remember, the Electoral College does not count the vote of each individual as a separate vote, but rather finds out what the majority of that state wants and is supposed to vote that way. This is why swing states become so important: members of swing states tend to remain undecided much longer or these states vote a certain way by a small margin. These few undecided states end up deciding the entire election.
     Let's review, shall we? My roommate's and my votes will not matter on Tuesday. Why? 1) The Electoral College groups our individual votes into one vote for the whole state. 2) We are both members of captured states. In order for the voice of the rest of America (not just the swing states) to matter, we have got to get rid of the Electoral College. Otherwise, this young, naive, excited voter will have no choice but to be apathetic with the rest of the nation. And why wouldn't she? Her vote doesn't count anyways.

Keeping my Mouth Shut

     Earlier in the week, a friend informed me that she will not be voting. While I was not surprised, I asked her why. Her response was that she does not know who she should vote for or what she should base her vote on. She then asked what I thought: Should someone who doesn't know who they want to vote for vote anyways? My answer to her was straightforward: The person should know and then they should vote. While I was speaking with this friend, I understood what she was saying. Why would a person spend so much time concerning herself with politics when there are other things to do (such as get lost in a marathon of television)? Still, I had no sympathy for her lack of knowledge. Since then, my own confidence in voting has been shaken.
     I hate the two party system. The problem I have with the two party system is that I feel limited. Personally, I agree with the social policies of one party and the fiscal policies of another. So what does this mean? It means I have to choose. What means more to me, my morals or belief of what will get our nation back on track fiscally? Up until today, I was quite certain that fiscal issues mean more to me. As my other posts can attest, I care deeply about education. Forgetting all of my personal bias- both of my parents have worked in and made their living in the education field and I am a college student- I genuinely believe that education is consistently one of the most important issues on the ballot. Education is one of the few issues that can be pointed to as having an immediate, lasting and irreversible impact on the future of our nation at all times. This is one of the main reasons I have chosen to focus on fiscal issues.
     Personally, I also find fiscal issues to be the least controversial. While they are extremely important, people are less likely to be insulted by discussions on fiscal issues. Altogether, fiscal issues are less emotionally charged and look to find practical solutions. Social issues on the other hand, are emotionally charged. Even a discussion on certain issues can greatly offend individuals on either side. Call me a pansy, but I prefer not to deal with emotions when discussing politics.
     Maybe in doing this, I have chosen the easy way out. Instead of standing up for what I believe in, I have chosen to deal with issues that are important and are less controversial. Perhaps my friend was the more correct of the two of us: maybe it would be better if I did not vote. Of course I will vote but the discussion with my friend forced me to think about things I have never thought about before. Is it acceptable that I am choosing to ignore a set of issues for my own comfort and the comfort of those around me? I think not.

Voting 101

     Recently, SNL released a skit entitled the "Undecided Voter." Just as the name implies, this video acknowledges the importance of the undecided voter and address the issues undecided voters have to deal with. Instead of talking about typical political issues, the skit argues that the biggest problems the undecided voter deals with is not knowing the basics of how to vote.

     As ridiculous as the video seems, it is surprisingly accurate. As a student at USC, I have quite a few friends who have not registered to vote... Monday is the last day to register. While many of these people have the best of intentions of voting, they most likely not be able to as a result of not fulfilling the requirements.

     There are two things to note about the statement made above. First, the college age bracket is notorious for not voting. Before entering college, I could not perceive how someone who had the ability to vote would choose not to. Now that I am a part of the highly scrutinized age bracket, I understand: we don't know what we're doing. Do we have to apply for a change of address every time we move apartments (all within a mile radius of each other, mind you)? Should we just use our parents' address? Is it better to vote in the state you are currently in (and may be starting a life in) or in the state where your life has been (but may be no longer)? Secondly, the young people I am referring to GO TO USC. As can be seen in "Going Green" by Peter Raptis and "Poverty & Education in the United States: The Cyclical Disaster" on That's Annoying, people of my generation do indeed care about today's issues. If a group of highly educated individuals do not know how or do not feel comfortable with the voting process, how can the general population be expected to?

     I wonder if it is time to revise the voting system. For a generation that spends more time with a computer than a pen and paper, the bureaucratic system currently in place makes no sense. I am not arguing that the whole system should be converted to an online system- people would still be left out of the voting process in that case. Rather, I am arguing that the voting system should be revised and expanded. I am curious to see if voting rates would increase if voting online was made a possibility. If changing the voting system to be something that makes sense to all possible voters is "out of the question," maybe the government can start supporting Voting  101 classes... But then again, I wonder how many people would take the class.

Undecided Voter:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/404175

Helpful OpEds

Pop Goes the President
Republicans for 'Sesame Street'
Clinton's Classy Mea Culpa