Picking a President

This presidential election might as well be labeled as the “Election of Firsts”. We could see the first woman president, the first African American president, the first Mormon president, and the first 160 year old president. Well maybe McCain isn’t that old, but it’s close.

America has come a long way in the last 50 years or so. We are now a much more just society and have recognized that characterizing someone based on their gender, class, religion, or race is a pretty dumb thing to do. That’s why we have laws prohibiting such things in the workplace and educational institutions. I’m happy that we’ve progressed as much as we have, but will be the first to admit that we have a long way to go. The current presidential campaign demonstrates just how far away we are.

When Obama announced his candidacy some within the African American community immediately criticized him for not being “black enough.” Others immediately gave him their support because he would “further the black cause” in America. I hope both of these reactions shock you. Not hiring someone because of his color is obviously wrong. But I’m confused how making someone President of the United States of America because of his color is any better. Remember all the “Hey, Just because we’re the same color doesn’t mean we think the same!” cries? How did that change when it comes to electing the leader of our nation?

It doesn’t stop there though. There are scores of women that have done just the same but instead of throwing their support to Obama, it has gone to Clinton. Why? Because she is a woman.

Now obviously there are men that support Clinton and whites that support Obama. There are also African Americans that don’t support Obama and women that don’t support Clinton. So, please don’t think I’m generalizing that all people of these groups are this irrational. But, there are plenty that are supporting one of these two candidates simply because of his color or her gender. That is absurd.

I wish I could say that it stops there, but it doesn’t. Apparently, many people believe that one’s particular religion is a sufficient reason for either supporting or not supporting a candidate. Among those that support Obama or Clinton for irrational reasons, there are those that are not supporting Romney because he is a Mormon. This is just as irrational. This past week Romney did a wonderful job demonstrating why he would make a great president. He did a masterful job presenting his position on the role of faith in politics, refused to pander to any one particular interest group, and reminded those fellow believers what makes America so great.

In sum:

If you vote for Obama because he’s black, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.
If you don’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.

One’s race, gender, or particular religious belief should not have anything to do with whether or not that person is able to lead our country. Can the person work with both sides of Congress to get things done? Will this person garner respect from the international community? How does this person’s moral views line up with yours? Has this person demonstrated an ability to solve problems and resolve pressing situations?

I’d like to think that Oprah has endorsed Obama because she thinks he’s the best for our country and that Barbara Streisand endorsed Clinton for the same, but I honestly doubt that’s the case. I also doubt that Robertson’s endorsement of Guiliani had nothing to do with Romney’s Mormonism.

Governmental Inefficiencies

We’ve all heard the talk about how inefficient big governments are. Disgust at the amount of money it takes to accomplish even the smallest tasks and horror at the unknown amount of pure waste are common among most people today. Usually these things can only be pointed out by looking through vast amounts of paperwork and interviewing countless people (signs of yet more government inefficiency). Yesterday, however, one could see the wasted money fly right out the window.

As I opened up my first copy of The Economist (and the first of only six copies because continuing on after this free trial period is just to dang expense for a graduate student) I decided to see what was on the television. Somehow the channel ended up on C-SPAN and I was able to witness the most ridiculous government spectacle I’ve yet to see with my own eyes. In the House of Representatives there was a debate about a controversial piece of legislation that would allow the federal government to purchase contraceptives and send them to poor and underdeveloped countries as part of foreign aid. The controversy arose because many of these countries, which were previously and specifically excluded, also endorse abortion as a means of family planning. The Republicans didn’t want the public’s tax money to be spent on abortion in any way. The Democrats didn’t think this sending contraceptives to these countries would do that because there is specific language specifying that no U.S. money could be used on abortion or abortion promotion.

I’l try my best to capture the essence of this debate:

Democratic party representative: “This bill does not approve spending on abortion overseas. It approves sending contraceptives overseas. We are not exporting abortion. Instead we are allowing these poor women and children a chance for a better life by preventing unplanned pregnancies. The Republicans say that they support family planning, well this is your chance to do just that. Vote yes for this bill.”

Republican party representative: “By providing contraceptives to agencies that promote abortion as a method of family planning, we are allowing that agency to free up money previously spent on contraceptives and spend more on abortion and promoting abortion. They no longer need to spend the money on contraceptives because we’re giving them to the agency for free. Therefore, they will have more money in their budget to do exactly what the American people don’t want them to do, promote and practice abortion.”

And then after this brilliant back and forth between parties, another person from the Democratic party comes to the microphone and gives the exact same argument the previous Democrat gave. Of course this infuriates the Republicans so they have to respond. Fortunately for them, another Republican representative comes to the microphone and gives the exact argument the previous Republican gave. Right now the American people have a very low level of confidence in the U.S. Congress and I think this is why. Why can’t more legislation be discussed and passed in each session? Because evidently no one in Congress has an attention span longer than 15 minutes. If no one has anything new to say, then why not just move on and vote?

That would be the sensible thing to do, but then all the representatives that didn’t get to speak at first wouldn’t be able to post their repetitive diatribe on their own little websites for their constituents to see. I know, if you want to report back to your district that you were active, then come up with a new convincing argument that actually advances the discussion!

Economists are always able to (somehow) put a value dollar on time wasted. For example, they’ll tell you so many millions of dollars are wasted on employees playing solitaire at work. I wonder how much money was wasted yesterday on high level government employees grandstanding with the same argument a colleague just gave?

Some miscellaneous updates

I don’t have a terrible amount of time, but thought I would take a few minutes to give everyone some updates on past postings.

1. I have previously posted about how difficult doing philosophy can be. Well, I believe that to be true more than ever. I am currently working on what will probably turn out to be the most difficult paper of my philosophical career. Who would’ve thought it’d take more time to write a 6-7 paper than other papers that were 15-20 pages? In sum, Kant is not a good writer and almost impossible to figure out.
2. In regards to a post a couple weeks back about the ban of incandescent bulbs, I just thought it was interesting to note that there are a few countries that have taken the same step. Which countries? Cuba and Venezuela. Yes, that’s right. Fidel Castro and his buddy Hugo Chavez have banned incandescent bulbs. While I don’t think the California ban would be implemented the same way (government ordered teens went into people’s homes and removed the bulbs themselves… I don’t see a bunch of people ransacking SoCal homes to take out the incandescent bulbs), I do think our continuous progress toward socialism is a bad thing. I don’t want to commit the genetic fallacy here, but it is interesting that our public policy is starting to look more and more like certain socialist countries. (Well, maybe it’s not the genetic fallacy if we’re talking about socialism. I can just argue against that outright.)
3. My wife is an amazing person. Most of you already know that, but I just thought I’d take the time to say it myself for those that don’t know. She has so much on her plate and yet continues to be supportive of me and my goals. I’m often impressed.

That’s all for now, my paper is due on Friday and hope to give some more substantive updates once that’s over.