Chapter 9

I do not overly identify with one specific party over the other. This is, in part, due to the fact that I am not a “joiner”, the type of person who feels comfortable with letting others’ opinions represent, or take place of, my own. Another factor is that I have little appreciation for the types of people who spout political talking points as if they were gospel truths. I am very critical of the two party system. I find it to be a cancer that is destroying the health of this nation. All of this is not to say that I do not have stances on issues. I have some beliefs that align more closely with the Republican party (particularly gun rights), but more that align with the Democratic party (economic issues, civil rights). I am one of those people who are not represented well by the two party system, and perhaps would align more closely with a third party.

To postulate on an America without political parties is akin to arguing whether Spiderman could beat Batman in a fight. It is an unnecessary exercise in fantasy. I think we do not need political parties, anymore than one “needs” a terminal illness. Political parties serve to act as a system of control, kept in place by special interests and wealthy donors, actively working against the best interests of the country. This isn’t to say that nothing of value is done through the political party system, but the detriment overshadows any benefit. The problem with a non party system is that funding for national campaigns, and to a lesser extent state races, are expensive, and public funding of races would be necessary to supplement the funding brought by the party system. This is unlikely, seeing as how many Americans are opposed to doing anything for the good of society if it requires sacrifice.

I have a mixture of three parties, some of which would seem incongruous to some people. I used to identify as a Libertarian, and went through all of the literature “necessary” to libertarians (Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Rand), and immersed myself fully. Only after examination of the economic policies did I find that the separation between reality and the ideal economic model of the Libertarians is too vast to ignore. I do, however, still have a lot of libertarian leanings, such as a belief in the repeal of drug laws and non interventionist foreign policy. The Green party represents what I believe is needed economically, with a focus on eliminating the juggernaut-like effect of money on the oppression of others. I have little desire to create a “fair” system, as I believe fairness is in the realm of fantasy where Spiderman and Batman roam, but I do think the power of the wealthiest needs to be diminished, and as such, I think some redistribution of wealth is necessary. The Socialist party’s stance on reform of the prison-industrial complex and the elimination of corporate welfare aligns with my beliefs. Plus, if you join the Socialist party, I think they give you a free Che Guevara shirt upon entrance.

I commented on Dara Cates, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram

Chapter 8

As an education major, one of the groups that appeal to me is the NEA, or National Education Association. This group seeks to have an effect on public policy regarding education in America. With the state of education in this country being abysmal, I think their mission is important to the future success of the nation. Along with their political action, they also serve as a tool for educators to learn from. Some of the issues they are behind is reducing the cost of college education, increasing funding for education, protecting teachers, and pushing for standards in education. I think these things are of utmost importance. In 2014, the debt that students have taken on to further their education has topped 1 trillion dollars, more than any other country in the world. This crippling debt has mounted without yielding much benefit, despite the fact that many western European countries have begun thinking of college education as universally needed, and have made it accessible to everyone in the same way K-12 is in the USA.

One group that I associate positively with is the Secular Coalition of America. This group, made up of various religious and non-religious people, are an advocacy group that act on behalf of those that think that religion and government should be independent from one another. Some of the issues they address are discrimination that is religiously motivated. Few people realize the number of people yearly who are discriminated against because they profess no religious belief, or a religious belief that differs from the norm. On top of discrimination based on the beliefs of those affected, they also address the undue influence of religion on public policy making. The debate over the use of stem cells to cure diseases, women’s issues, marriage rights, and the use of taxpayer money to further religion, are just a few of the issues they seek to influence.

I believe interest groups serve an important purpose in this country, but in some ways they have too much influence. The Citizens United decision was one of the worst missteps in the history of democracy. The notion that spending unlimited amounts of money to secure political victory for politicians that are friendly amounts to free speech is one of the most laughably transparent power grabs in history. The traditional model of many people gathering together to support issues and influence the political discussion is turned on its head, and with this decision, a handful of billionaires can now purchase politicians, giving the billionaires a status greater than that of the average citizen. I would imagine most people could see how this would be detrimental to democracy.

I commented on Meagan Zientara, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram

Chapter 7

Objectivity in reporting has become increasingly hard to find as of late. Most Americans get their news from a source that only provides for confirmation bias, or the idea that people seek out news outlets that confirm their preconceived notions of things. Because of this, Fox News and MSNBC have become nearly unwatchable, with the prior being a mouthpiece for the Republican party, and the latter being one for the Democratic party. The viewer is to blame for this phenomenon, as it is they who are refusing to demand reliable, objective news sources, and instead desire to be told what to think on every issue under the sun. This has led to a polarization and nastiness unprecedented in our history. What should be simple disagreements over policy are turned into the “Obama is a commie” or “Bush was a Nazi” rhetoric that is neither true nor helpful to solving any problems that we face. For me, I seek out multiple different sources for a story, in hopes that I can discern enough information about a subject that I can decide for myself what it is I think on the subject. I trust none of the major media outlets to provide anything other than a soapbox for politicians to bash each other over the head with slanderous accusations and baseless personal attacks. No thank you.

Talk radio has no effect on my own personal opinions on political issues. I have views that run the gambit from what some would call very liberal to very conservative (a person that believes in the right of people to marry whom they choose and the right of people to bear arms? You simply can’t believe in both, according to the talking heads). The sheer nastiness of talk radio, with its sensationalism and bitterness, serves no purpose other than to enrage people about issues that aren’t worthy of becoming enraged over. People simply want to be mad about something, and people like Rush Limbaugh provide an outlet for their frustration.

Media objectivity is, and should be, important to everyone. The idea that people would allow others to determine how they should feel about any given issue is ridiculous. An informed populace is of utmost importance to the idea of self governance, and as such, if you are willing to give up your opinion to those who would form it for you, you are not worthy of self governance. Objectivity is the only way in which we can ensure that people aren’t being manipulated by the powers that be. A few corporations own most of the media outlets, and they have an interest in politics in that they can get what they want concerning the government more easily if you allow yourself to be swayed to buy what they are selling. Remaining objective, reserving opinion until all the facts are in, this is key to being an informed citizen. If the media don’t allow for this, because of their own political interests, then it slowly destroys the basis of self governance.

I commented on Meagan Zientara, Adrian Arthurs and Nick Buttram