The Test

Last week I went to one of my classes ready to do what students typically do in classes: ready to take a midterm exam. I walked into the room and took my seat. The professor had a stack of stapled tests sitting on his desk. Multiple choice, short answer, and one essay to round things out. Simple enough. I took out a number two pencil and a pen, and started to run all of the likely questions through my brain, a last dress rehearsal.

Then something different happened. My professor stood in front of the class and told us that we had a choice. We could take the test by ourselves and he would give each person that did so a total of seven extra credit points. Or, we each had the option to pick a partner, anyone that we wanted, and to take the test as a team. However, there would be one drawback: teams would have five points deducted from their overall score.

Immediately, the class full of both engineering and business majors did what both engineers and businesspeople do: everyone analyzed the options. In the end, I decided that the benefits of a partner outweighed the obvious incentives to take the exam on my own (plus, my girlfriend’s roommate had asked to be in my group, and so social niceness dictated that that was probably the only real plausible option).

One week later, when we showed up to class, the professor had posted the grade distribution on the board, and it was as follows:


After allowing us time to look over the results, he asked who had done a better job. So, who had?

Just looking at the raw scores, the two person teams had in fact scored higher. However, when the point curves are applied, the final scores for the individuals far exceed those of the teams. So which one matters more?

As the professor went on to explain, it’s really a matter of defining the purpose of the examination. If we suppose that its purpose is to get the best grade, then the individuals did the best. In contrast, if we determine that its principle purpose is to promote learning and to ascertain how much of the information is understood, then the teams performed better for two reasons. First, they had a higher raw score, which shows that they answered more of the information correctly. And, in the process of having to explain their answers to their teammates, each team member was likely to have had to display a deeper understanding of the material. So, if learning is the core purpose of the exercise, then one would likely conclude that the teams benefitted more and therefore did better in the end.

However, the problem is that too often, in school and in society, we don’t appreciate the process, and we don’t often relate our results back to any fundamental purpose. As my professor explained, we have created a “culture of victory over excellence”. Students in the end are more concerned with the final grade, with the final GPA, than they are with real learning. And, as I alluded to before, society seems to share this mentality.

Think about many of the core systems at work within our society: Wall Street, our legal system, or even our politics. Does each of these systems reflect their core purposes?

The stock market was created as a method to generate needed capital for growing business. Investors provided money that helped fund necessary expansion, and in return hoped to receive a healthy compensation for the adopted risk. At its core, it was about creating something and growing the economy as a whole, to the benefit of us all. But today that purpose is not readily reflected on Wall Street. Stocks are no longer seen as long-term investments, or as partial ownership stakes in strong companies, but they are instead consumed by the concept of profit.

We have developed various concepts such as short trading and day trading that effectively create nothing. Board of directors promote company practices that cut costs and increase profits rather than ones that generate jobs or encourage only smart growth. Company stock prices increase when CEOs announce job cuts, and the most attractive stocks represent companies with unproven potential for growth, rather than companies that have established consistent revenues. Our emphasis is on the price of a stock at the end of the day, and not the state of the company itself.

Our legal system is no better. We have lost a sense of its true purpose to adjudicate cases of potential wrongdoing and ensure personal liberties. In a society where doctors face a lawsuit every four years on average, and where civil litigation consumes and constricts company actions more so than any economic factor, you have to question whether or not our legal framework even still knows what its purpose is. Whether it is still a part of the solution, or if it has somehow come to advance misuses that threaten our society more than the evils it was designed to combat.

And the partisanship of our politics could be no further from its purpose. It has devolved into an entity that does not uniformly represent all constituents, but instead it is fueled by ideology and representatives only represent those special interest groups that put them into power. I am currently watching Barack Obama speak in Columbia, Missouri and he explains that we need “a smarter government”. But I don’t know that it needs more intelligence, because it seems well capable of achieving its own ends. Instead, it need only be smart enough to relearn what it was intended to do. It needs to relearn and reconnect with its purpose.

At the end of his discussion of our exam, my professor concluded that “it is your responsibility that when you are given the opportunity to operate under a different paradigm that you connect with its purpose”. He never answered which group had done a better job. Instead, although unspoken, his message was that we needed to create our own paradigm within which to answer that question. Each student needed to surmise his or her own definition of purpose. And so too must America.

Proposition 8 (Part 2)

My last post, “Proposition 8”, has received some criticism in terms of whether or not Proposition 8 does in fact substantively limit the rights provided to homosexual couples, or whether it is simply nothing more than an alteration to the wording of the definition of marriage. I think that this is a valid point to question, and one that would be best addressed through an additional post on the subject, rather than within the comments area. So, here is Proposition 8, part two.

First, let me preface all of my remarks by stating that my own personal inclination is to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The institution of marriage carries a predominately religious connotation, and given that religious institutions have traditionally established it as a union between a man and a woman, I find myself rather inclined to maintain that specific definition.

Second, I do not in any way support any action that would mandate a religious organization to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony against its own free will. I support the concept of freedom of religion with the same rigor that I find myself supporting the idea of individual equality. Any such measure, proposed either now or in the future, would be met with complete disgust on my part.

That said, it is true that proponents of Proposition 8 have offered that it does not limit the rights provided to same-sex couples because of the equality provisions ensured by California’s Family Code § 297.5. This code states that:

a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,

protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same

responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they

derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,

government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources

of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

This provision, also referred to as the Domestic Partnership Act of 2003, was heralded as one of the most progressive measures ever taken in order to ensure same-sex couple rights. And, it should be applauded, for it did provide for significantly elevated levels of equality for domestic partnerships in the state of California. Some of the positive implications of the act included:

- Protections for children of same-sex domestic partners, including the ability for courts to allocate visitation rights to each partner.

- Expanded property rights that more closely reflect those of married couples. This includes that jointly acquired assets be divided to each partner "...in proportion of interest assigned to each partner at the time the property or interest was acquired unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing by both parties” in the event of a partnership dissolution.

- Upon the death of one of the partners, the other inherits, absent a superseding estate plan, the deceased partner’s property in the same manner as a surviving spouse.

- Significantly expanded anti-discrimination protections.

- Additional employment benefits to mirror those of married couples.

This act was a gigantic step forward, and surpassed any other protections for domestic partnerships that might have been present at the time. However, it also did not provide complete equality, and left for various inequalities to still exist between the treatment of same-sex domestic partnerships and married couples. These inequalities include:

- Limitations on the filing of joint returns. Under the act, partners must still use the same filing method for state income tax returns as they do for their federal returns. And, given that the federal government does not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of income tax filing, this effectively prohibits same sex couples from filing joint returns.

- While judges are able to order the payment of spousal support, as they do for typical divorced couples, these payments are not tax deductible for domestic partnerships as they are for married couples.

- Section 1041 of the Internal Revenue Service Code ensures that capital gains taxes not “be imposed on a division of assets pursuant to a dissolution of marriage.” However, this does not apply to domestic partnerships.

- Domestic partnerships are not afforded similar rights to married couples with respect to obtaining Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, which are required in order to divide a private pension plan in the case of the relationship’s dissolution.

- The Domestic Partnership Act does not modify rules “defining eligibility for long-term care plans under the Public Employees' Long-Term Care Act.”

Admittedly, the majority of the above examples of differential treatment relate to the Federal handling of domestic partnerships, and would not be drastically altered regardless of whether or not Proposition 8 passes. Still, it provides tangible evidence that inequalities still exist between the treatment of domestic partnerships versus married couples, and it suggests that there remains a need to strengthen the rights provided under those partnerships if we are to ensure uniform individual rights while restricting those who are able to obtain a marriage license.

What the passage of Proposition 8 would do is to take a prohibitive step backwards from advancing equality in any of the above-mentioned areas of differential treatment. It would continue to restrict the right to file joint returns, and prevent challenges of federal laws restricting other areas of fair tax treatment.

Some might suggest that such implications are not the intent of the proposition, and that they should therefore not weigh on whether or not it is adopted. To that I say that we must undoubtedly be as much, if not more, concerned about the end result of our actions as we are with the intent that drives them. And to those who would suggest otherwise, I can only hope that a similar emphasis on intent over result be applied to all areas (i.e. criminal justice system, etc.), and not just those that benefit our own personal aims.

The argument that Proposition 8 serves as nothing more than a definitional refinement is the same that was put forth to support the passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, DOMA did not simply define marriage as between a man and a woman, it instead provided a philosophical framework that to this day diminishes the strength of domestic partnerships in general. DOMA has been the core justification for the above discrepancies, and it has therefore amounted to much more than a simple definition.

Lastly, as I had argued in my first post on the subject, questions of whether or not marriage should be limited to a man and a woman are quite valid, but they carry no relevance in relation to a Constitutional document. Such documents are meant to provide and protect rights, not to limit them in any way. One comment on my previous post argued that it was simply an issue of “Webster’s…(defining)…marriage as a union between a man and woman”. In that case, it is an issue that is best argued with a publishing company rather than played out on the pages of our most central governing document.

Proposition 8

Little more than a week away from Election Day, much of the national focus is directed towards the presidential race, and much of our national dialogue involves whether or not a black candidate can really write history and be elected to the country’s highest office. With national polls that show a commanding lead for Senator Obama, it seems that there is a real likelihood that it will happen. But still, we ask questions.

Will there be a significant anti-black vote? Can Obama win votes among rural, blue-collar voters? What percentage of blacks will go to the polls to vote for the first black president?

The conversation is so consumed by the topic of prejudice and race that I wonder sometimes whether or not we are fully able to move beyond it. Whether or not a minority candidate could ever not only win, but win without race playing a real role. Still, the fact that we have even reached this point suggests that we have significantly progressed as a society when it comes to our own underlying prejudices. Right?

And then I look to my home state and I am not so sure.

While the state of California seems all but certain to cast its share of electoral votes for an African American candidate, it is also taking part in another dialogue: whether or not it should pass Proposition 8. In essence, Proposition 8 seeks to overturn the state Supreme Court’s ruling to allow gay marriage, and would add an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as solely between a man a woman.

This measure has ignited passion from a predominately conservative base of support. It has been advanced by religious leaders who have equated the issue of gay marriage with “Armageddon”, and who have warned that if “we lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion” (Charles Colson). As a result, evangelicals and other faith-based communities have sent numerous volunteers to the state of California and have raised over $25 million to date in order to get the measure passed. They have touted it as a question of societal values and family empowerment, but to me it seems more a product of two less commendable forces: hypocrisy and ignorance.

Supporters of the measure argue that recognizing gay marriage will lead to an erosion of the system of religious freedom. They claim that churches will be sued if they refuse to marry gay couples, will have their tax-exempt statuses revoked, and that religious leaders will be faced with potential imprisonment if they refuse to recognize these couples. In order to prove their case, they have aired numerous commercials featuring a Swedish pastor, Ake Green, who was jailed for one month in Sweden because he made a speech that vehemently condemned homosexuality. However, these arguments, although they serve as effective vehicles of fear, lack any credible precedent within the American judicial system.

The fact is that, within the states that currently allow gay marriage, no religious groups have been forced to condone or recognize any same sex couples. Furthermore, Catholic churches have never been forced to recognize remarriage for divorcees, and Jewish synagogues frequently refuse to marry cross-religious couples, without any legal repercussions. Our legal and governmental institutions have consistently reinforced, not lessened, religious freedoms. In fact, under the Bush administration, the Federal government has even supported funding for religious-based groups that discriminate during their hiring processes based on a person’s religious affiliation. And, lastly, Mr. Green’s case is a question of freedom of speech rather than discrimination. And I highly doubt that our country is going to move to limit the freedom of speech ensured under the first Amendment of the Constitution any time soon.

So if this proposition isn’t really about threatening freedom of religion, then what is its appeal? Maybe it’s simply because of our deeply engrained homophobia. Homosexuals represent a relatively small minority of the broader population, and society’s tendency is therefore to ostracize the pariah. But doesn’t this stand against the identity and purpose of the concept of America in general?

Those same conservatives that are most prone to support this proposition are also often the group that most aggressively defends the right to bear arms provided by the second amendment to the Constitution. While moderates and liberals might support restrictions on gun ownership because they feel that the amendment was not intended to provide a blanket, all inclusive prohibition against gun laws, these conservatives argue that we must read and interpret our founding document at face value. What is said is implicitly what is meant. So then what is the meaning of the statement that “All men are created equal”?

Trying to construe or modify the intent of this last statement has led to the most significant flaws in our union: slavery, segregation, and gender discrimination. In due time we have found each of these to be, in one way or another, forms of gross hatred and illegal in nature. Still, we once again try to modify the words in order to justify and make way for our own engrained prejudices.

The other interesting component of this bill is that it has found support among many minority religious groups. Conservative Jewish groups, as well as Hispanic Catholics, African American evangelicals, and Mormons alike have all pushed for its passage. But do these minorities remember that they too were once victims of similar discrimination? It was only through progressive changes to our set of values that they were even bestowed the right to now stand on the corner of a street and publicly preach their own opinions, regardless of what they may be.

The potential use of the constitution as a tool for limiting the rights of any group is in and of itself disturbing. At the time of this nation’s creation, the Constitution served as a catalyst and a protector for those individual rights that we saw to be inalienable. Its purpose is to support personal freedom, not to limit it. Such an interpretation of the document’s intent is inherent within the title of the pages within which the aforementioned liberties are contained: the Bill of Rights.

Similarly, state Constitutions serve as guarantors of individual freedoms. They create a basic framework that outlines and limits governmental action against individual rights. Therefore, to use such a document for the purpose of constricting such rights undermines its most fundamental purpose and confuses our most fundamental understanding of its relevance within our political discourse.

Lastly, and this view is mostly a by-product of my own personal opinions on the matter, who is gay marriage really affecting? Assuming that we accept my assertion that it in no way threatens to encroach on religious freedoms (which it does not), then who does it really impact other than those that directly benefit from it? Let churches refuse to recognize such unions, and let bigots make the decision to not interact with homosexuals if they so choose. In the end, one need not be in any way exposed to the effects of gay marriage if they do not want to be. Some may argue that it erodes the concept of family values and threatens to negatively impact our future children. But I argue that it no more impacts our children than the father that chooses not to engage in his child’s upbringing, the sixteen-year-old who has a child while in high school, the parent with a drug addiction or tendency to abuse their child, or a foster care system that is wholly inadequate to address the needs and emotional concerns of those children placed within it.

Our society is far from perfect, but it is no more ruined by gay marriage than by the plethora of other forces at work within it.

So, I foresee the significant likelihood of waking up next Wednesday to a national conversation. We will tout the election of a black president and will discuss its representation of a new era of racial relations and understandings. And in many ways it would represent just that.

And the proponents of Proposition 8 will point to its passing as a success for family values and ideals, although it stands as a direct contradiction to those values and ideals that created this union and that in the end allows for those families.

The Blame Game

Alan Greenspan returned to Washington on Thursday to a much less cordial atmosphere than he was accustomed to. An objective observer of yesterday’s congressional hearing might have noted that it was more reminiscent of the accusatory, blame game format from the Robert Clemens steroid hearings than one of Mr. Greenspan’s past visits. He used to walk through the Congressional hallways with an air of cool composure and was greeted with a venerable deference that few others could claim to possess.

But things are different these days. Now we are in the midst of a financial collapse and elected officials need to do what elected officials tend to do when there are problems: they need to find a scapegoat.

Watching yesterday’s hearing, I saw a man who had made an error in judgment. An error that cost a lot of people a lot of money. Greenspan was as adamant a proponent of deregulation as anyone involved in United States economic policy. His basic theory was that self-preservation would lead free markets to maintain reasonable levels of risk and to avoid taking actions that might lead them to financial ruin. So, he argued, the government did not need to enforce stricter regulations on subprime mortgages and other highly sophisticated lending vehicles. In retrospect, this idea of self-regulation clearly proved itself to be insufficient.

Greenspan was also wrong in other core assumptions. For example, he repeatedly dismissed fears about an imminent housing bubble. Under his guidance, the Fed maintained historically low interest rates and pursued policies that drove home prices up at rates disproportional to the growth of wages. Greenspan also not only condoned aggressive lending practices, but he seemed at times to encourage it. Under the assumption that home prices would continue to incrementally increase well into the future, he was a fervent believer in promoting home ownership for individuals, even if that meant they assumed loans that seemed somewhat unaffordable (the idea being that the increase in property value would offset the rising mortgage costs).

Clearly, Greenspan was wrong in a good deal of his assumptions relating to the housing sector and to the idea of deregulation. And the thing is, he would be the first person to tell you that. In yesterday’s hearing Greenspan stated that, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief”.

The problem is, Greenspan isn’t the only person in this situation who is responsible for the mess that were in.

The other thing that I saw yesterday was a room full of politicians who seemed entirely more concerned with allocating blame away from themselves than with engaging in an honest discussion about how to fix the problem. Democrats wanted Greenspan to pin himself to the stake and confess the deep, dark, evil truths about how deregulation had led to corrupt business practices. And, you know what, that’s true. Greenspan could and should have led the Federal Reserve to exert more influence on the practices of the financial sector through using the powers provided to it by the 1994 Home Owner Equity Protection Act. Instead, he didn’t and the private sector ran wild.

Republicans wanted to talk exclusively about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They wanted Greenspan to point the finger at Democrats for a lack of oversight over both institutions, and for their roles in promoting increased homeownership among the middle class, even though that meant the securitizing of mortgages that people largely couldn’t afford. And, again, that’s true. Democrats did push for increased homeownership despite the obvious risks associated with such an agenda, and a lack of oversight did likely contribute to the need to now bring both Freddie and Fannie under direct governmental ownership through a conservatorship.

Democrats wanted to brand corporations and other lenders as villains for marketing predatory loans to consumers unable to pay them. And they also wanted to openly criticize Wall Street for promoting a culture of outrageous executive compensation that places the interests of the wealthy above the interests of main-street. Again, they are correct. Lenders should never have marketed these predatory loans, and they are significantly to blame for the resulting fall out from them. And, you know what, the culture of executive pay on Wall Street is wrong. A CEO of an S&P 500 company makes, on average, $14.2 million annually, while thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every day it seems.

Republicans wanted to blame homeowners who knowingly entered into mortgages that they very well understood they couldn’t afford. And that’s right also. People should live within their means and be held responsible to a certain extent when they make poor decisions that eventually don’t work out.

See, that’s the problem here. There is blame to go around, and so in the search of scapegoats we find more than enough suitable targets. But no single source accounts for the entire end result. Like the global community in which we live, each person’s actions are interconnected and interdependent. Each of the above problems account for real factors, but they likely could not have occurred independent of everything else.

Furthermore, while identifying the source of a problem is an important element of fixing it, it can’t be the final aim of the process. In such a hyper-political environment, I fear that our sole aim has devolved into assigning blame to “the other side”. But we focus far too little attention on developing solutions, and we display far too little understanding of the fact that, in a time of crisis, none of us are on different sides; we are as interconnected as the system of failures that brought us to this point.

And so, what I saw yesterday was a congressional hearing that seemed to still not understand how to move beyond the past. I saw a former chairman of the Federal Reserve who made an error in judgment, and who was a significant part of the problem, but who cannot be blamed for everything. And, in any case, where would such blame really get us?

Symbolic Implications

In the United States, maybe more so than in any other country in the world, symbolism matters immensely. This country is unique in that it was built predominately on unifying principles rather than common heritage or racial identification. We are tied together through the constitution, a single paper document, rather than a singular lineage. And so, the symbolic value of our actions comes to inherit as much meaning as the end result of those actions.

It is with this in mind that I find myself altogether confused at what transpired yesterday in New York. I suppose that what I feel is disappointment more than anything else.

The New York city council, by a vote of 29 to 22, passed a measure that will wave the two term limit for elected city positions and will pave the way for Michael Bloomberg to seek a third term. The issue was passionately debated by both sides, and resulted in a much more divided result than is typical for votes within the council.

According to mayor Bloomberg, the decision to push for a third term was a direct response to the current financial crisis, which he said raised the need for “consistent leadership”. In other words, this really wasn’t about him at all; he is doing this for everyone’s own well. But was the council’s vote really that altruistic in nature?

A closer look at the numbers behind the measure’s approval is quite telling. Of the 35 council members whose tenures were to be brought to an end this next year due to the 2-term limit, 23 voted for the approval of the measure (that is roughly 80 percent of the total yes votes). By contrast, only 6 of the 16 members in their first term voted for the measure. A pessimist (or perhaps a realist) might look at these numbers and find it interesting that one’s likelihood of voting to extend the term limits increases directly with how much they stand to gain from doing so in the short term.

Look, my objection here is not necessarily to the extension itself (although I believe that such limits must exist to some degree), but rather to the exclusion of public input in the process. Especially, in this case, given the city of New York’s traditional apprehension towards such an extension. Similar measures were proposed publicly in both 1993 and 1996, but they were each defeated. Sure, Mr. Bloomberg’s current approval ratings are nothing less than astounding (hovering at just around 70 percent), and so maybe public sentiment on the issue has swayed. Maybe the city actually wants such an extension. But who am I to make that determination? Who is the city council to make the determination with minimal public input?

In the end I suppose that voters will still have the opportunity to pass judgment when they cast their ballots next year. But, it’s the idea that democracy can be altered outside of the democratic process that in and of itself offends my sensibilities and that seems altogether counterintuitive. It’s the precedent that is set that is so overtly distasteful. In reference to the opening, it is the symbolism of this gesture that I disdain.

When this country was founded on principles, those principles only inherited meaning through their practice. George Washington could have quite easily sought repeated reelection, and he would have in all likelihood been successful time and time again. But what differentiated the American experiment from any other country was that he did not do it. Instead, he relinquished personal power for the purpose of empowering democracy itself.

Simply put, it was that symbolic gesture, and others quite like it that defined what it means to be a democracy.

So congratulations on your success yesterday mayor Bloomberg. I hear that you have done a great job so far, and I suppose that you are likely the frontrunner for the position. You’re probably even the best candidate. I get all of that, I really do. Just forgive me if I don’t believe that your end justifies your means.

About More Than Race

“Its about race.” That was the response from Rush Limbaugh regarding Colin Powell’s endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. But, was it? I just don’t think so. In fact, I don’t think that it was even predominately about Barack Obama at all.

If it was about race, Powell could have made this move months ago, when questions about Obama’s experience and preparation were more at the forefront of the national conversation. Think that Obama wouldn’t have openly welcomed such an endorsement amid attacks from both John McCain and Hillary Clinton that the presidency wasn’t “on the job training” months ago?

If this was about race, Powell could have simply given Obama’s name when Tom Brokaw, anchor of MSNBC’s “Meet the Press”, asked him whether or not he was prepared to make an endorsement this past weekend. He could have given some standard tag line about the need for change, or read some carefully worded statement about Obama’s credentials and preparation (as most thought he would). Instead, he delivered a seven-minute, unscripted and honest response that was as much an indictment of the Republican Party, the Bush administration, and the McCain campaign as it was an endorsement of Obama.

“I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years…It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it,” Powell said to Brokaw. He also made harsh criticisms of John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President, about whom he said was “clearly not ready to be President, and that is the job of the Vice President”, and he also sharply criticized the largely negative tone of the McCain campaign. He displayed anger over its focus on issues such as Obama’s limited connections to William Ayers, and the labeling of his tax policies as socialist. According to Powell, the McCain camp needed to pay more attention and allocate more of its focus to the real issues facing the country.

Powell seemed to endorse Barack Obama as much for his own appeal as he did for the simple fact that he represents a significant departure from the current course of the nation under the right-leaning ideologies that have come to characterize the GOP.

Understandably, the fact is that endorsements typically amount to very little. They don’t often alter voter opinions to any great extent, and are made into big deals largely by the 24-hour news cycle of the media and the hype machines of the candidates’ campaigns. They don’t change much. However, this one feels different.

I am not saying that Colin Powell is going to drastically alter the dynamic of the race, but I think that his endorsement could have real implications for the future of the Republican Party and for an Obama presidency, if he can win the election.

Powell’s criticisms of the right wing and of the Bush administration are largely in line with the opinions of most moderate Republicans that I talk to. Many of us fervently disagree with the direction of the party, and harbor disdain for the ultra-conservative ideology that has taken such a significant hold of it. As a still very much prominent face within the party, Powell may well have given some political cover for moderates to more actively voice their displeasure with this party transformation, and may make way for a louder call to change from moderates.

Already, within the twenty four hour period immediately following the Powell endorsement, conservative Philadelphia talk radio host (and periodic fill-in for Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor”) Michael Smerconish followed Powell’s lead and publicly endorsed Obama. This is little more than a week after William Buckley’s son, Christopher, did the same, and continues a slow but growing trend of Obamacans (of which I am one).

These party defections may seem independently insignificant, but their collective impact may amount to more than just a sum of their parts. Much like Eisenhower and Reagan democrats did in the past, these Obamacans represent a genuine displeasure with their party’s current state, and they are slowly developing the kind of political effect that can bring about legitimate change. The fact is, Republicans cannot win without holding the moderate base. And Colin Powell is clearly the most notable sign that support among that base is eroding.

Second, Powell may represent the very olive branch that Obama needs in order to bring about the kind of bipartisan cooperation that he perpetually mentions. Sources close to Powell claim that he and Obama have spoken numerous times over the last year and a half, and that Obama has actively sought out his advice on numerous issues ranging from national defense to the current economic crisis. Powell did not rule out a position within a potential Obama presidential cabinet, and the idea would make ideal sense. By bringing Powell into his administration, Obama could appoint the kind of prominent Republican that might be able to reach out and encourage cooperation from more moderate and pragmatic Republicans.

This is clearly the most encouraging sign yet that Obama may very well have the potential to deliver, to some extent, on his promises to lessen the partisan divide that is so evident in Washington.

So, sorry Rush Limbaugh, this was about a whole lot more than race. It was about more than just Barack Obama. It was about a need to change the ideology of the Republican Party in a real way. It was an indictment on the right. It was an indictment on people like you Rush Limbaugh.

Wrong Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny a writ of certiorari to hear the case of Pennsylvania v. Dunlap effectively allows a ruling to stand from the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court that significantly narrows the definition of probable cause and greatly hinders the scope of authority for police officers. It seems that justices, schooled primarily on legal theory rather than real-world implementation, feel it appropriate to favor principle and legal parsing to actual police work. Inevitably, this has no further advanced this country’s efforts to combat crime, but rather it has greatly hampered it.

The question at the core of the aforementioned case is what exactly constitutes probable cause. While in an undercover capacity, a Philadelphia police officer serving on the narcotics task force, Officer Sean Devlin, spotted a man standing alone on an empty street corner. Another person approached the man, exchanged few words, then each exchanged something between themselves and parted ways. Given that this was a high-crime neighborhood with significant drug traffic, Devlin drew the obvious conclusion that he had likely just witnessed a drug transaction. He radioed in the incident and police picked up the purchaser with three bags of crack in his pocket.

Great police work? Apparently not in the mind of some.

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court overturned the verdict against the appellant, Nathan Dunlap, on the grounds that Officer Devlin did not have proper probable cause to arrest Dunlap. The court claimed that Devlin could not establish probable cause because he had not seen the exact items that had passed hands between the two men on the corner, and therefore could not conclude that it in fact had been drugs (I guess we just set aside the point that Devlin’s intuition had been completely correct).

And so, absent a contrary Supreme Court opinion, the criminal goes free and the police officer’s expert conjecture serves absolutely no purpose at all. Absent a Supreme Court opinion that now will never come.

Public opinion is so greatly tilted against law enforcement officers that today we favor the accused to the point of making officer’s jobs nearly impossible. We ask them to prevent crime, but we force them to do so with every possible odd stacked up against them.

Look, I understand the skepticism. And I am not one that feels we should eliminate the rights of the accused altogether. In fact, I feel that those rights are essential for citizen protection. But there must be a logical limit to the extent of those protections. At some point we over legislate the process of crime enforcement to the point that it loses all viability. And in my opinion, the Pennsylvania Court’s decision egregiously steps over that line of logic.

I mean, maybe we should only convict people who commit crimes in plain view, on videotape, while audibly confessing, and who have at least two viable forms of identification in their pocket while they do so. That would eliminate any potential for false conviction, and it would also eliminate any need for police officers. Because if we don’t give them any latitude of action, really, then what’s the point of using taxpayer funds to employ them at all?

It should be noted that both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy fervently dissented with the decision to not hear the case, and with good reason. At least there are two people who still see the differentiation between reasonable and ridiculous.

Innovative Thinking On Crime

As a presiding officer on the student judiciary, I am allotted the responsibility of adjudicating student disciplinary cases that involve the potential for either suspension or expulsion. The wide arrays of topics that are discussed within my hearing room include offenses as serious as sexual and physical assault, and as mundane as the underage kid who had beer in his apartment during a party with friends. But the most common type of student misconduct that I deal with is drug offenses.

Drug use is an epidemic whose reach extends far throughout our society, and this could be no more evident than on a college campus. Universities represent hives of personal experimentation, and it seems that students will make use of any opportunity to test the boundaries of what is allowed and what is not. And so, the University seems in a constant uphill battle against illegal drug use.

So how does this battle play out? Many may think that students who are found responsible for drug use should be made into stern examples. I mean, why not? You take a kid who did something wrong and you punish him or her to the full extent of your judicial authority so that others get the message and do not follow suit. Admittedly, this was the mental framework that I had adopted when I first joined the judiciary. This is the mental framework that our society has maintained throughout its “war on drugs”. However, I question whether or not it has actually achieved its primary goal of reducing drug use.

The fact is that it hasn’t, and it wont ever. I spent my first couple of years aggressively pursuing the least lenient sentence recommendations that I could. The result? It did little to change the dynamic of drug use on campus. Offenders made ineffective deterrents, if they made deterrents at all, and the amount of drugs on campus did not lessen. Instead, the end result of my actions was simply to hinder the futures of the respondents that I punished. By kicking them out of student housing or by fighting for immediate suspensions, I had placed too great a focus on the punitive element of sentencing, and had lost sight of its educational aims.

Admittedly, there are actions that are so egregious in nature that they must be punished greatly. However, actions need to be viewed in conjunction with the person committing them, and one must search for whether or not that person might be better taught a lesson through educational learning rather than wholly punitive reprimand. My problem was that I had begun to view these acts in a vacuum, where drug use was simply drug use, and where I began to no longer concern myself with the lasting impact of my decisions on the person committing the violation. I was not looking to improve the offender, but simply to punish them. In short, I had adopted the mental framework that our criminal justice system has predominately adhered to.

The university took a much different stance on the issue than I did, one that luckily limited my ability to punish the offenders, and one that I now see to contain significant utility. Rather than immediately suspend a student for drug use, they are given the opportunity to engage in drug rehabilitation. Students can participate in drug education and submit to random drug testing for a period of time that is typically one year in length. If the education and tests are completed without relapse, then any additional punishment is foregone. The result? Students are given a second chance that they, more often than not, take advantage of. It’s a philosophy of working to educate and improve the student rather than to purely punish them for their actions, and it tends to work. So, might it work in the broader context of society’s criminal justice system?

I read an article this morning by Erik Eckholm in the New York Times that bolstered my faith that it just might. This educational approach is exactly what innovative “drug courts” have adopted. Started in 1989 in Miami, Florida, drug courts provide drug offenders with the option to enroll in an extensive treatment program rather than serve direct jail time. Over the course of the program, participants are placed into group and personal therapy, and submit to extensive urine testing. For a period between 9 and 18 months they are under the constant supervision of a judge who is quick to applaud positive progress and equally quick to punish failures. If these participants fail to complete the program, they must serve their original prison term.

Does it work? Yes.

Recidivism rates from these programs are, on average, 10 percent lower than in regular prison, and are a staggering 26 percent lower in the state of New York (Erik Eckholm, New York Times). While the cost of implementing these courts is significant (roughly half a billion dollars nationwide), they have provided an estimated $1 billion in savings nationwide from eliminating the price associated with incarcerations.

This is the kind of innovative thinking that is desperately needed in our criminal justice system, and from judges as well as implementers and administrators of law alike. With prison populations precipitously increasing to the point where prisons in California run at well over one hundred percent capacity on average, and with the costs associated with incarceration seeming to exceed the benefits of strict law enforcement, we need to provide more than a temporary fix to the crime problem. Imprisonment is only a band-aid that covers the wound created by crime, but it does little to address what created the injury in the first place. And so, any innovative approach to addressing crime, especially if it displays potential merit, must be applauded.

Over the course of my time as a presiding officer I have come to realize that judicial sanctioning must be about more than just punishment, and that it must strive to promote personal betterment if it is to make a real impact. People are works in progress, and are not beyond improvement. From my experience, applying this philosophy has proven more successful and more rewarding. And it seems that this is an idea that is not only applicable to college campuses, but may translate well to society as a whole. Or at least we can hope.

Real Economic Gains

At the onset of this political campaign, conventional wisdom suggested that an unexpected national crisis would favor the most experienced candidate, John McCain. However, this idea was based on the belief that such a crisis would be of a national security nature. Instead, it took a different form: the floor of the economy fell out beneath us. And, rather than this crisis favoring McCain, it seems that it has provided significant political advantage to Barack Obama.

In the most recent Gallup poll, Obama holds a 14-point lead over McCain when potential voters were asked who would better handle the economy (Gallup). This lead was even larger among independent voters, a critical battleground, where Obama’s advantage is 21-points on the economy (Gallup).

Given the importance of the economy right now, and given its influence on the dynamics of this race (map McCain’s poll numbers against the well-being of the financial system in recent weeks and you will likely see a direct correlation), it is no surprise that both candidates have chosen to deliver new economic plans this week. Mr. Obama offered his $170 billion rescue plan yesterday in Toledo, Ohio and, while I am writing this entry, John McCain is attempting to counter him with initiatives of his own during a speech in Blue Ridge, Pennsylvania. So who stands to gain the most from their proposed solutions?

Obama clearly wins points for being the first to deliver his plan. The McCain campaign had originally planned to deliver its revamped economic message yesterday, but opted not to after a weekend of considering various policy options led to a lack of consensus about what to recommend. The campaign instead decided that they would not offer any significant proposal until “events warranted”. And then, they again changed tactics and decided to offer up new policy proposals today. Clearly, consistency and a first-mover’s advantage favor Obama.

Overall score: Obama 1, McCain 0.

Looking at the plans themselves, the next major issue to be considered is the actual proposals. Obama favors a much more detailed and comprehensive approach that addresses a number of elements specific to this crisis, as well as broader components of the larger economy. He favors a 90 day freeze of foreclosures for homeowners making “good-faith efforts” to make mortgage payments to any institution benefiting from the economic rescue plan, modification of mortgage terms by bankruptcy courts, and a 10 percent refundable tax credit on mortgage interest for non-itemizing tax payers (i.e. typically lower-income households). Obama also followed McCain’s lead on calling for a delay of mandatory withdrawals from 401(k) accounts by elderly people, and added a potential allowance for individuals to withdraw up to 15 percent (or a maximum of $10,000 dollars) from their retirement accounts without penalty. Lastly, Obama proposed tax cuts ($500 for individuals and $1,000 for families) making less than $250,000, a $3,000 business tax credit to companies for each new American employee hired above a company’s current workforce, and the extension of unemployment benefits, as well as their exclusion from taxation for the time being.

Obama also offered additional proposals such as creating a temporary facility for loans from the Treasury and Federal Reserve to states and local governments in financial distress (they might as well just call this what it is: the California bail out plan), creation of a similar lending facility for small businesses, a $25 billion investment in state and local infrastructure (under the umbrella of promoting job creation), and $25 billion to states and local governments to subsidize the provision of essential services without tax increases.

McCain’s plan is also extensive in its focus. It includes direct purchases of troubled mortgages by the Federal government in order to restructure them into fixed-rate vehicles, a suspension of the requirement for 401(k) withdrawals, extensions of the Bush tax cuts along with new tax reductions, and a reduction of the corporate income tax top marginal rate from 35 to 25 percent. Today’s additions to his plan include 100% coverage of savings accounts for 6 months by the FDIC, a 1-year spending freeze of all non-essential governmental programs, elimination of taxes on unemployment benefits (following Obama’s lead), and an increase of the capital loss deduction from $3,000 to $15,000.

Who wins on the specifics?

I think that Obama’s plan offers a more extensive scope, and it also provides more details on its core aspects. Obama’s rescue plan addresses concerns of states and municipalities in need of financial assistance, directly encourages job creation, and provides significant relief for homeowners locked into expensive mortgages. The plan takes into account all aspects of the current crisis, and it also has support from a democratic congress and senate that will be essential in passing any such package.

Furthermore, his plan combines elements of stimulation by offering both conservative and more liberal fiscal ideas. The combination of the two spectrums of fiscal philosophy makes it better suited for independent voters, while McCain’s predominately conservative approach (aside from direct mortgage purchases) is aimed towards the Republican base, which is already heavily in favor of McCain on the question of the economy. For McCain, he needs to not double-down on efforts to appeal to his core constituency at this point, but to instead broaden his base of support.

McCain’s plan is at times lacking explanation. In his speech today he said that the government needed to quickly move “out of the business of bailouts…(and) back in the business of responsible regulation”. However, he offers no indication of what those regulations might be. He argues that companies benefiting from the bailout should not be able to use funds to create “golden parachutes” for executives but, unlike Obama, makes little mention of mandating restrictions on executive pay.

That said, McCain’s plan still has many strong points. Guaranteed coverage of savings accounts would go a long way towards ensuring investor confidence and would largely prevent continued draws on bank assets. Also, capital loss deduction increases would significantly help ease the pain of losses in the capital markets. Still, I worry that McCain’s approach of relying on blanket tax reductions to the Corporate marginal tax rate may not be the most efficient method of stimulating job creation. Instead, he may be better served by using a more activity-based tax credit strategy (similar to the employment tax credit being proposed by Obama).

This said, both plans contain a lot to be liked. And, in addition, McCain’s speech today in which he delivered his plan was particularly strong, which helps to increase the effectiveness of the message.

Score: Obama 2, McCain 1.

The last issue to be considered is cost. The current economic rescue plan already looks to handcuff fiscal planning well into the next president’s first term, and so additional funding must be allocated wisely. Obama’s plan requires an additional $170 billion total. McCain’s plan, given its lack of concrete details about its implementation and the extent of tax reductions, does not have a direct price tag. However, his plan to directly purchase and restructure mortgages alone is estimated to cost $300 billion. The winner here?

Final Score: Obama 3, McCain 1

And so, don’t expect this week’s economic proposals to do much to change the trajectory of this race. Obama has thus far been the primary beneficiary of this economic crisis, and it seems unlikely that much has been proposed to change that.

Change of Plan

Over this past weekend the White House indicated a potentially significant shift in its plans for the implementation of its $700 billion economic rescue plan. Trading the difficult to comprehend concepts of reverse auctions of troubled mortgages for something more simple minded and logical, officials seem to now be favoring a direct capitol infusion coupled with direct mortgage purchases by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. So, the question that begs asking is this: will such a change in approach provide a real solution to the problem?

The concept of direct capital infusion into banks (i.e. the federal government would purchase non-voting shares of stock in financial institutions, giving it a direct ownership stake in those companies) is a fundamentally massive change in tactics and approach by the Bush administration, which, until this point, has been driven by a free-markets ideology that labeled any such approach as unacceptable. Fiscal conservatives fear that direct interference into the private sector would lead the nation on a path towards nationalization of the banking system. And so, fears of the hypothetical dictated policy decisions and steered the White House away from even considering such an approach (even while it was being strongly promoted by many Democrats).

Well, message to Mr. Bush: the financial crisis right now is not hypothetical. We cannot decline to fix the problems in front of our face because of the fear of potential problems that may or may not arise around the corner.

If this infusion of capital will help to instill investor confidence and prevent a reenactment of the Lehman Brother’s debacle (which could have been prevented, except for the fact that a bailout didn’t fit with “free market ideology”), then I say all the better. And indications are that this new plan might do just that. When discussed with leading industry executives, they “quickly told Mr. Paulson they liked the idea” (Edmund Andrews and Mark Landler, New York Times). Additionally, this idea is very similar to what was initially suggested by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and mirrors similar efforts being made abroad (Great Britain is proposing a similar, albeit more extensive plan, and Germany is expected to propose a plan along the same lines sometime this week).

This proposal also offers much more room for investor understanding, and therefore investor acceptance. The idea of reverse auctions for troubled mortgage back securities is too foreign to too many regular Americans. In fact, it may even be too complicated for government officials as well. One of the key reasons for this change of tactics, according to many officials, is that experts were struggling to create an agreeable method of executing these auctions.

Now, the government can put the solution into simple terms for simple people: “We are going to buy stocks”. So, by being able to better explain the situation and the solution to investors, they might be, if only slightly, more inclined to allow their fears to be marginally calmed.

While I disagree with John McCain’s assertions only a few weeks past that the fundamentals of the economy are largely good, I do think that he was in part correct when he suggested that the economic problems we are facing are somewhat driven by fear. The stock market itself is ninety percent perceptual. And so how could the government expect a rebound in confidence or perception when investors don’t even understand the “fix” being applied to the situation?

This new approach to the problem is better because, if nothing else, it makes more sense. And so, President Bush is now allotted a new and improved opportunity to frame the situation in a way that investors can grasp. Whether or not he will capitalize on that opportunity is beyond my abilities of prediction, but at this point he needs to at least try. And, in the little future that his administration still has, he needs to never again set aside possible solutions for the sake of ideology.

Challenges

(I recently had to write an essay about what I saw as the main challenges facing the University of Maryland going forward. This is what I submitted, and I think that it is applicable not only to Maryland, but to many educational institutions as well.)

The challenges facing the University of Maryland are in large part challenges of identity. The University stands on the fault line that separates those academic institutions viewed as simply sufficient, and those select institutions viewed as altogether exceptional. The choice as to whether or not this University will find itself on the side of the latter is a choice that it must make itself.

I believe that these challenges facing the University can be segregated into two separate components: the first being perceptual and the second being systemic. The first component, that which is perceptual, is specific solely to this University. It relates to the esteem in which this institution is viewed by its own student body.

I attended high school just outside of Los Angeles, California. It was a small private school, and at the end of my four years there I knew one thing for sure: I wanted to attend a college on the east coast. Furthermore, I wanted to attend an elite business school. So, I applied to the usual colleges that one might suspect: Michigan, Penn State, Boston College, etc. I also applied to Maryland. It had a high ranking in most of the business school listings, and it had a great location, one that I thought I might reside in after graduating. So, I filled out my applications and figured that I would let my acceptances make the decision for me. However, my acceptances went reasonably well, which was great, except for the fact that I now had to make a decision on my own. I had to pick which school offered me the best opportunity to achieve all of the life goals that I had for eighteen years been creating, altering, and then recreating.

I initially made the decision (based really on nothing more than a gut feeling) that I would attend Boston College. It sounded elite, and that was about as much as I cared about at the time. But, in response to the constant urging of my parents, I decided to visit each of the college campuses. When I arrived at Maryland the decision was taken once again out of my hands and, on an emotional level at least, it was made for me. I was amazed by the University’s campus, its incredible resources, and was met with a level of knowledge and friendliness on the part of the faculty I met that was superior to that of any other school I visited. I realized that Maryland had every resource and every capability that I would find at any other business school, and I made the obvious assessment that it offered me the best opportunity to be successful in life. My opinion of Maryland could not have been any higher.

However, since I have come to Maryland, I have found that many in state students do not share my perception of what Maryland represents. In fact, I have had to answer the question, “So, why would you come all the way from LA to Maryland?” enough times that I have a fairly well prepared and practiced response for the occasion. It seems to me that these students still view Maryland as a school that is no more than “where a lot of my friends went”, or one where “my parents wanted me to go because the in state tuition isn’t that bad”. But, really, it’s a lot more than that. They don’t realize that Maryland is currently emerging as a premier academic destination. They don’t see that this “local” school is gaining global respect.

So, as I said initially, the challenge is largely perceptual in this case. And, until the perception can be brought in line with the reality, Maryland’s hopes of continuing to establish itself as a top academic institution can only advance so far. A school is truly limited in success by the quality of student it attracts, and therefore, it must improve how it is viewed here at home first and foremost. A student from Silversrping or Bethesda should aspire to attend Maryland not because of the location or cost, but because of the prestige. And when a student travels an entire country to attend what has emerged as one of the top business schools in the country, they should not be met with questions about why they chose to come here, but rather with an air of understanding. As if they not only understand why the decision to attend Maryland would have been made, but as if they recognize the privilege that such an opportunity would represent.

The second significant challenge that I see facing this University is one of a more systemic nature. However, its effects can be seen as clearly here at Maryland as at any other academic institution in the world.

As a student within the Robert H. Smith School of business, I have been exposed to both the best and the worst elements of the student body here at Maryland. I have met and worked with students whose future aspirations are matched only by their unwavering dedication to his or her current academic pursuits. However, amidst these truly commendable examples, there exists a significant component of the student body that does not share this personal drive or determination. In the end, these are those very students that will graduate and subsequently discredit the value of a diploma from this school. And the problem here is derived from the fact that Universities are much like business in that they are only as highly regarded as the final product that they produce. Therefore, the University must ensure that the final product “put to market”, to use a business term, is of the caliber that this institution aspires to be regarded.

As was previously stated, it should be noted that this problem is not one that is singularly limited to the University of Maryland, but rather it should be understood that it is inherent to the entire educational process as it is currently constructed. We are amidst a social climate in which education is viewed simply as a means to an end, and not instead as the cornerstone of our entire society. Therefore, absent an underlying desire to learn, students have relegated their educational aims to doing exactly what is needed to get the necessary grade. Inevitably, we end up with a fundamentally flawed mentality, where students are only concerned with filling in forty multiple choice questions correctly three times a semester, and, even more alarming, they are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure they can do just that.

The point which I am trying to make here, whether artfully or not, is that the second significant challenge facing this University, and facing the broader American educational system as a whole, is the concept of values and ethics. How we view the role of education, and to what purpose we as a society come to feel it serves is essential in dictating how it will be practiced. In my opinion, education in general has come to be undervalued as a vehicle of learning. It is instead seen as a necessary intermediary step through which people must endure. In the end, many students are not molded into better human beings, but instead they are transformed simply into statistics and tuitions. Or, in another light, they are transformed into poor final products and failures. We, as an academic institution, come no nearer to improving the future through the present, but instead we simply fail to live up to the aspirations of all those who truly care to teach, and we diminish the experience of all those who truly care to learn.

As I have repeated again and again, this second challenge is one that the University does not face by itself. It is a problem that the educational system must face as a whole. But it is on this issue of educational appreciation and personal development that the University must establish itself as a leader. Maryland must continue to facilitate educational opportunities to those who are unable to afford it, to recognize those who truly take advantage of it, and must create an environment that discourages a mentality that suggests learning is unimportant. Four years spent here at Maryland must mean more than a diploma, a GPA, or a final exam.

The challenges outlined above are not simple in nature. There are no easy answers to either. However, it is the choice of this University as to whether or not it will lead the way in coming closer to an answer. In the end, that is what great institutions should do, and that is exactly what Maryland should be.

Dirty Politics And Racism

The campaign being run by John McCain is floundering. He is losing by a significant margin in many critical states, and political websites such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and 270towin.com estimate that, if the election was held today, Barack Obama could count on at least 264 electoral votes, while McCain could only feel assured that he would win 163. That means that, with 270 being the magic number, McCain has to win virtually every single “swing state” up for grabs.

These swing states include Virginia (12 point lead for Obama), Nevada (7 point lead for Obama), and Florida (5 point lead for Obama). Not even the fact that George W. Bush won each of these states in both 2000 and 2004 can provide Republicans with much faith that McCain can do the same next month in the face of the current trend in the polls. Clearly, the momentum is behind the concept of change and behind the Obama campaign. And while much of that momentum can be attributed to the stain of the Bush Legacy on the Republican image, it is also a byproduct of something much more surprising: just how poorly run the McCain campaign has been.

Admittedly, I am no political mastermind. I am not thoroughly versed in political tactics or strategies. However, I am something that might be considered equally important when weighing a campaign’s effectiveness. I am a voter, and from my armchair, Monday-morning-quarterback-perspective, the McCain campaign has been a disaster.

It is unorganized and altogether beneath the man that it represents. From its choice of a completely unqualified running mate (See Sarah Palin, Katie Couric interviews part 1 through what seemed like 100), to its inconsistent choice of message and core identity (think: what is Obama’s campaign slogan? What is McCain’s? Have trouble with the second?), or to its sporadic attempts at drawing attention to itself (what exactly did suspending his campaign to “help” with the financial crisis really do?), McCain’s campaign has done little to reverse to anti-GOP tidal wave. But, the most alarming evolution of the campaign has been its recent flirtation with downright dirty politics and racial innuendos.

In a recent article for the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote that, “Crowds in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have repeatedly booed Mr. Obama and yelled ‘off with his head,’ and at a rally in Florida…The Washington Post reported that a man yelled out ‘kill him’. At the same rally, a racial insult was hurled at an African-American television cameraman.”

Really? Is this honestly where and how the McCain campaign wants its supporters to be directing their energies? True, McCain has periodically pushed back against such a negative tone. When a woman at an event in Minneapolis claimed she could not trust Obama because he was an “Arab”, McCain responded, “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man”. But, as Mr. Nagourney pointed out in his article, McCain made no effort to correct her false assertion that Obama was an Arab.

Additionally, there were also two instances this past week during which an introductory speaker at a McCain campaign event referred to Barack Obama by his middle name “Hussein”, an obvious means of trying to persuade voters to believe he is Muslim (if you think that it was just a simple, kind-hearted use of his middle name, then think of the last time you heard McCain referred to as John Sidney McCain…no one uses middle names unless they serve a purpose). McCain condemned these two speakers’ actions, but his campaign has done nothing to encourage speakers to not do the same in the future.

Look, not everything can be blamed on the candidate himself. As the campaign’s intensity continues to increase, emotions will run high and surrogates are bound to say more stupid things on both sides of the aisle. However, it is important that a candidate take a firm leadership role in condemning such slips of the tongue, and in ensuring that they do not continue to happen.

Being President of the United States is to be a role model. It is to be the example that we all aspire to follow. It is to be a leader. So, while John McCain cannot be blamed for the negative tone that has begun to seed itself within this campaign, he should be expected to do a better job of discouraging it.

John McCain should follow the example of Barack Obama when his followers began to exploit the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter for political gain. He held a press conference in which he declared families “completely off limits” from the political arena, threatened to fire anyone from his campaign who negatively discussed Palin’s daughter, and stated that he did not want the vote of any person who would think that dragging family issues through the public eye was acceptable.

This country is hungry for that kind of leadership. It is in need of a candidate who will set that kind of an example.

The current political climate is not ideal for any Republican, and the numbers suggest that McCain may lose this election regardless of what he does. However, as parents often remind their children, there is a right way and a wrong way to lose. And who knows, maybe if McCain chose the right way to begin with he might not be watching this election slip out of reach.

The Reagan Route

Listen to any speech by just about any Republican politician and you will probably notice a trend: invoking the name Ronald Reagan is a pretty popular talking point with the party base. Twenty years after his leaving office, the ripple effect of Reagan’s presidency remains evident within the Republican Party, and it is a significant component of its message. Candidates espouse conservative values and consistently claim that they are going to govern the way President Reagan governed. However, is another Ronald Reagan really what the American people need or want right now?

I, like most Republicans and many Democrats alike, hold Reagan in the highest esteem. I believe that he represented the very best of America and that he was one of the most effective presidents in recent history. He built the foundations of a broad political coalition that brought about real change in this country, and to say that he was beloved would be an immense understatement. But to say that his method of governance could succeed in today’s political climate would be rather naive.

The political philosophy and ideals of Reagan are not ones that can be consistently relied upon and invoked with great success. They were largely manifested and mandated by the political landscape of the time. Reagan’s conservative ideals, inspired by like-minded thinkers such as William F. Buckley, developed as a direct response to the widespread liberalism of the sixties and seventies. They represented change, and they identified with a growing public sentiment that society was losing its core identity.

Our current political landscape is in some ways similar, but in others it is completely different. As was the case in the late seventies, we are torn apart by partisanship and general disdain for the government. Maybe even more so than back then. However, the causes of disdain are not the same. We are not experiencing a time of true social upheaval, but we are instead subjects of a government that is just simply out of touch.

If Reagan developed the image of government as a country’s parent, then our current public seems as eager to rebel against that parental influence as a stubborn teenager. And the Republican Party has itself largely to blame for that fact.

To be a conservative means a lot of different things. But, it is safe to say that its generally accepted that one of the key attributes of a conservative political philosophy is to promote a government that doesn’t interfere with the lives of individuals. So then, why is the current conservative base so obsessed with doing just the opposite? To tell women what to do when they are pregnant. To tell homosexuals how they can or cannot live their lives. To dictate what should or should not be taught in schools.

Nowadays it seems that being a conservative means that you think government should have a role in every aspect of our lives.

Sure, Reagan used this fatherly, tell-you-what-you-should-do approach and it worked. People were tired of the widespread use of drugs, so he waged a war on narcotics. People saw employing illegal immigrants as unfair, so he signed into effect the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). And people wanted to promote hard word and sacrifice, so he asserted himself as a certified union buster by strictly enforcing the Taft-Hartley Act. All in all, he told people, employers, and workers what was acceptable and what wasn’t.

But, as any over-bearing parent is likely to find out in due time, it can only work for so long before the kid is going to act out. So maybe our party shouldn’t be so obsessed with bringing back Ronald Reagan after all. Or at least not for the time being. Maybe we should step out of peoples’ lives a little bit, let the kids have a little room to grow up and learn on their own.

What the country needs now is an even hand. It needs something more moderate and in between the two extremes. The country, and the Republican Party, doesn’t need a return to what it used to be. Instead, it needs to address the problems of today and develop a government that addresses those problems appropriately.

That’s what Reagan would do.