Looking back?

POL 213: In “Obama's Amnesia Problem,” Peter Beinart writes about a trend among American citizens, and notably the youngest generation of Americans, toward forgetting the past. He considers this a problem that specifically affects Barack Obama’s candidacy for president. The senator from Illinois stated his opposition to the Iraq war more than five years ago, at the same time that Hillary Clinton voted for it. This should be giving him a lift in popular opinion among the denouncers of the war today, but it seems that his record has been forgotten, or conveniently swept under the rug and out of sight. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reports that, “likely Democratic primary voters who say they want U.S. troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible" choose Clinton over Obama by more than 2 to 1.”

This phenomenon is occurring partly because of Clinton’s political maneuvering to position herself exactly where many Americans find themselves: originally willing to support a war effort, they’re now looking for someone who will stand up to the Bush administration and put an end to the war. Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to focus attention on his track record. He is implying that his qualifications to lead are based on his correct judgment back in 2002, and that her dissenting opinion shows a weakness that shouldn’t be present in the Commander in Chief of the United States. Even though Hillary has no plans to immediately withdraw troops from the region, making her little different from the current administration, she is considered as antiwar as any of the other candidates.

This is the point where American indifference to the past comes most into play. Time and time again we have elected officials who were completely opposed to a plan at the beginning, but changed their tune later on instead of going with the first opponent of an idea. This speaks to our tendency to look forward rather than back. To our self-interest manifesting itself in the willingness to change sides of an idea. To make up our minds as we go along. It may also be a sign of stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, or to even admit them. Or of being so interested in the present circumstances that we fail to adequately plan or foresee the consequences of our actions. May this tendency to ignore the past serve as a cautious warning to Americans, and may the best possible leader be elected next fall.

The Job at Hand

POL 213: Our nation’s Supreme Court recently decided to hear a case to decide the decades-old question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals, or to the government as a collective whole. Their decision will affect states’ rights to impose gun controls or bans on their citizens. The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The current question lies in the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people.” It was decided by the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase meant the individual, and the ruling in D.C. vs. Heller was overturned to allow possession of handguns. It is this decision that is being appealed to the Supreme Court, and it is their responsibility to interpret carefully.

In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.

The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.

There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.

Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007 .

“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007 .

A Platform of Trust

POL 213: As I looked at the race shaping up for next fall’s Presidential election, something about the field of potential candidates struck me. I wondered where the sense of trust and dependability in my elected officials had gone. Is it simply my increasing maturity that allows me to see things as they really are, or are politicians really becoming more corrupt? At this point in my life, I can only imagine the multiplied pressures, strains, and temptations that public life can place on an individual. I doubt that I could stand untainted were I to be elected either. But I also recognize an inseparable truth: public officials should hold the trust of their constituents.

Their role is to be one of advocate and representative for the people. If they are going to give an accurate an unbiased consideration to the thoughts of their fellow citizens, they need to have a firm foundation from which to speak. This platform should not be compromised by teetering on both sides of an issue, or by waffling about the specifics of a potential solution. Only when Americans place enough faith in the person representing them in office can they then give credibility to government and our system of representation and choose to honor and obey their direction.

In an article for “World” magazine, Joel Belz brings up the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. He wonders, “When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me” (Belz 5). This trend is troubling to me in more than Romney’s situation. It speaks of hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Romney needs to firmly base his campaign in truth by standing by his word. He shouldn’t look to past tendencies to pander to lobbyists or to trivialize constituents’ genuine concerns. Only by establishing a basis for trust can he hope to win a majority of votes on that decisive November day.

Belz, Joel. “Trifling with the Truth.” World. 10 November 2007: 5.