Historic Victory

How Do You Vote?

OK, so maybe many of you have already voted since most states now have early voting as an option. But just how did/do you vote? I'm not really asking for whom you vote(d) but rather how did you did/do it? And I'm not asking if you use butterfly ballots, optical scan, or electronic voting machines. What I really want to know is how do you decide who you are going to vote for, who not to vote for, and what criteria do you use? Does gender,race , or religion matter to you? If so how much and why? Do you vote a straight party line, a mixed bag favoring one party, or do you always vote for the candidate and not the party. How much does an individual's charisma, personality or looks count? Are you an issue voter, and if so just one issue or multiple issues?

I don't think that there is any perfect way to vote so long as you feel confident that you have good, well-thought out reasons. I like to do what I can to be a savvy voter so I do do some research before I enter the voting booth. I think that is important to consider all along the campaign season what issues are important to you and do some thinking about how you see and understand the world. I think it is good going into the voting process with at least some ideas and maybe an thought out ideological framework. At any rate, simply knowing what issues matter most to you and understanding some basic things about how government and the world works are important steps before voting.

I discourage people from becoming single issue voters who only care about one thing because that generally means they have not thought about the other issue positions and how it might have real negative impact. When it comes to candidates you've never heard of before or issues you know nothing about, you may choose simply not to vote for these issues or candidates.
Voting a straight party ticket is at least ideologically consistent but to this day I don't think that I have ever entirely done that. I prefer to sit down and look at a candidate's education and professional experience and compare them also weighing other factors such as candidates' specific policy proposals (if any are available), their endorsements, and their answers to surveys and any debate questions (once again, if there are any). Party affiliations do matter to me because they often help identify some basic things that the candidates believe or value. However, I think that a person's political party rarely should be a sole reason to support or oppose a candidate because there can be a great degree of variety within political parties so it warrants that good voters do some independent research. I always like to keep informed all the way up to an election so I watch, listen to, and read news stories in a number of different daily venues. I think it is good to follow the news even in non-election year cycles.

Lastly, I look into what/who will be on my own ballot and do some research. I turn to resources such as Project Vote Smart,Politics1,and other helpful resources such as the Plain Dealers super helpful voter guide. Other resources are your local board of elections, candidates' websites, and local media such as your newspaper's editorial pages (online or in print). Just because a newspaper has endorsed a certain candidate doesn't mean you should take it at face value since they have their own criteria which you may not agree with, however you should at least read it to see their reasoning. Go online and look for any good information you can find because your vote is precious and it does count. You don't need to be an expert, just make sure that you are confident and conscientiously understand why you are or are not voting for a candidate or issue. Just don't give up and don't forget to vote.

I Have Issues

I do not normally intend on spending a lot of time explicitly endorsing candidates or issues but this one is important in my estimation. There has been a barrage of slick and costly advertising on Ohio TVs and newspapers over the last couple of months trying to convince Ohioans to vote against issue 5. They would have you believe that the issue would kill thousands of "good paying" Ohio jobs, restrict personal freedom, and threaten your personal information. It almost seems as if those with the campaign against this issue would wrap it up in any lie or associate it with anything and everything bad under the sun as long as they could persuade you to vote no. For those of you who don't know, Issue 5 is a referendum on the ballot that would approve legislation that has already passed in Ohio's General Assembly with strong bipartisan support. The legislation that Issue 5 backs puts a cap on the amount of excessive interest that payday lenders can charge at 28% (down from as high as 391%!). So guess who is behind all of this advertising against Issue 5? THE PAYDAY LENDERS! Voting for Issue 5 would not destroy the payday lending industry in Ohio as most of them have already applied for the a state licenses to operate under the new law's 28% APR cap. Of course they would still earn a profit under the new law.

Voting for Issue 5 is an important step in helping troubled consumers avoid the cycle of exploitative debt that many payday borrowers find themselves in too late. Earlier in their campaign, the payday lenders ran a TV ad with a farmer (actually an actor) explaining how he occasionally uses payday loans for his farming business and that Issue 5 would somehow hurt him. The ad was ridiculous. Among those who support Issue 5 is The Ohio Farm Bureau (along with the AARP, Habitat for Humanity, the Ohio Roundtable and the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio). Issue 5 has broad support among statewide and local politicians, clergy, nonprofits, and the business community. Voting for Issue 5 is the right thing to do. Now is the time to stand up and stop lenders from gouging the poor before we let it get too far just like predatory sub prime mortgage lending.

Campaign Developments

First of all, I want to acknowledge the relatively large amount of time since I last posted anything on this blog. I almost had to start dusting off the various parts of this blog before coming back to it, since it has been so long. The reasons I haven’t posted anything for such a long time are manifold. But basically I’ve been busy and haven’t had anything that I find myself absolutely burning to write about. That and I don’t feel like writing about the obvious or wasting my time saying something that portrays me as shallow or as merely copying an article I’ve read or something I’ve heard. This blog was born of academic roots so I felt that nothing of surface politics, simple preference or conjecture were appropriate or worthy writing.

That said there are a few things that have been on my mind over the last month or so. One thing in particular has been the rhetoric of this campaign. That both campaigns are now choosing to unify behind the rhetoric of “change” is either amusing or frustrating depending upon how you view it. The following are perhaps two very different ways of seeing it:
“Thank goodness both parties are finally agreeing on something and now we are entering a Utopian phase of agreement, bipartisanship, and sound decision making.”
OR
“Wow. Now that one candidate has found success with a particular theme, the other candidate is quickly and desperately trying to copy that theme (minus most of the substance contained within it) out of political necessity.”
Hmmm…??? Well I will let you decide.

But speaking of politicians claiming to rise above politics and offer change, it seems both candidates have promised much and delivered little.
Both candidates have pledged a different sort of campaign and a different sort of presidency. Well, how well have they done? Both Barack Obama and John McCain, pledged supporters of campaign finance reform (getting the influence of money out of politics), have promised to try to accept public financing and the stricter rules and limits for private money that accompany them. Both candidates have been important champions of campaign finance legislation (the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill and Obama instrumental in passing the strongest campaign finance bill in Illinois history). But Barack Obama broke with his earlier intentions and decided not to accept public financing, citing the massive amount of influence coming from “Swiftboat” style campaigns financed by Political Action Committees (PACs) that are much, much less controlled by such legislation. He may have a very valid point, but he still comes across disingenuous to some. Many will point out that by rejecting public financing he can raise more money privately which might give him a better chance of winning.

Secondly, one candidate promised to run a positive campaign different than those of the past. Yet, as he has fallen in polls and become more desperate, he has become increasingly more negative, dishonest, and has started to show signs of playing on the politics of fear. Because John McCain has been less inspiring (leading to diminished fundraising), he was hoping that he could cancel the already agreed upon set of debates and kick-start his campaign if Obama would agree to numerous townhall-style debates (a style that McCain feels more comfortable in). When Obama refused, McCain seemed to have become more desperate by reaching for stunts, tricks, and gimmicks to try to gain leverage whenever he doesn’t get his way. When he was down in the polls and Republicans didn’t like his preferred VP choices, he acted like a “maverick” and choose someone unknown and unexpected, who very conservative party members happen to love (there goes that whole “maverick” to his own party thing). He has continued to become more negative and erratic in his campaign decisions. Reaching for some ploy to help, he suspended his campaign (if you can call what he did suspension) and tried to use the financial crisis as a photo-op, jockeying to take credit for a bailout that his presence couldn’t help pass. (Read Wall Street Journal Article)

(Caution: the following video is rated TV-14. While some will find it mild, discretion is advised.)

But even more troubling than all of this to me has been Gov. Sarah Palin. She has been used as a wedge to try to peel women (perhaps Hillary supporters) from Obama. She also seems to have been used as a wedge for people on numerous culture war issues relating to faith, race, and class. It may be that she was chosen, at least in part, for her ability to subtly re-interject each of issue of identity politics back into the campaign. She may be supposed to represent the woman, the Christian, the middle-class smalltowner whose folksiness might serve especially to remind you just how different “that one” (McCain-speak referencing Obama) is from your average less elite educated white person. Even more troubling to me has been her apparently shaky grasp of some policy issues and most especially a particular comment that she made during her debate against Joe Biden. I sincerely hope that she doesn’t really want to expand the powers of the Vice Presidency beyond the scope of article one, section three of the Constitution that Biden references. Watch her comment:

And so altogether, while both sides have there faults, I think polls are accurately beginning to signal real division that people are noticing in terms of policy, substance, and style. It can be tiring listening to both candidates avoid serious issues or going negative, but contained within all of the strategy are some helpful hints and cues to each candidate’s temperament, style, and character. The policies are much more important but that can be researched independently, more quantifiably, and in print (I don’t feel much like talking about that now) and what is left over is style and character.

I think that both Presidential debates were pretty close and even, depending upon how you look at it, so they haven’t changed the race that much. Some are giving Obama the first two debates, but there certainly were no resounding victories. I think that I will talk about the specific of the policy and the debates another time.

Une Nouveau Raison D'etre

This blog began as an assignment for a college political science class by the same name as this blog's title (Modern Political Thought). Originally, my professor asked students to start a blog to comment on reading assignments to prove that we had read the assigned selections. The class was interesting with a mix of modern philosophic works pertaining to a variety of topics which help establish a theoretical framework for political science. Each post was read and graded by the professor based on content. Now that the class has ended over several months ago, its original use has long since been exhausted. Having had to create a blogger account for this class, I recently decided to continue bloging even without a professor's provoke.

I am not quite sure what will appear here or if I will even have the long term commitment, time, and interest to continue much beyond this point in the future. But the basic plan is to journal my thoughts and to share the insights of others about politics, the 2008 election, current events, and all the related ideas that may pop up in my head from time to time. I hope to add interesting thoughts and commentary that tries to capture the complex nature of the world from a variety of standpoints. If nothing else, at least this won’t just be a forgotten empty blog that I had to create for an old class. I guess I figured that since I had began the work creating this and posting on it, I might as well preserve it rather than delete it or simply forget about it. I welcome comments and suggestions and from there we will see.

Frantz Fanon: Conclusion, Critique of "The Wretched of the Earth"

I think Frantz Fanon is a very thoughtful and intelligent writer whose book, "The Wretched of the Earth", is not an easy work to critique without first admiring it. Throughout this book he applies detailed thoughtful analysis of the political struggles of decolonization. He describes in depth the division within colonized states and against colonial powers. He also discusses national identity and culture, nationalist government, and how the effects of colonialism shape the present and future of these states. In his conclusion, he builds on his previous chapters with a call to forge a new identity, separate from European influence. He talks about Europe's accomplishments and the tragedy of that same "progress". Fanon calls for a the Third World to "start over a new history of man which takes into account not only occasional prodigious theses maintained by Europe but also its crimes". (p. 238)
I think however that, in following this pattern, you are still being shaped by Europe. Perhaps he would even agree with this: that if you use a European example of what not to do, you are still in that paradigm. I think that since the peoples of Europe, Asia, and Africa have been influencing each other for generations before colonialism, it would be a mistake to not think that an identity completely separate from each other would be impossible. I also question those that think that there is no natural human state (as would someone like Foucault). If there are many natural human characteristics and behaviors, then whether in African or Europe or South America societies would have many strong similarities because their people are essentially similar.

Colonialism and Class Division

In Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth" a new sets of political divisions are discussed that haven't garnered nearly any attention in by our other authors. Their is a strong class like division seen between the rural masses and the urban colonized intellectuals that Fanon describes. Although they seemingly should both be together in their strong opposition to Western colonial power, Fanon describes a division between the two. A distrust between tribal divisions is played upon by colonial powers to protect their strength as is the division between the urban proletariat and bourgeoisie and the rural peasantry. Those colonized who have rubbed shoulders and worked the colonial system to their advantaged are not trusted by the rural masses nor do they trust them either. (p.67) Although the sponteniety of a violent revoult by the rural masses is cheered by the urban colonized, they have made little effort to work them into a political framework or to honor traditional authority. They have themselves become simular in ideology and in class to the colonist. These divisions spillover into to a post-colonial liberation. I think that the political divisions of which Fanon speaks are interesting yet tragic because you can see the damaged left in African because of them today.

Shame and Gender

Reading Sandra Lee Bartky's essay on shame and gender, I was confronted with a number of social aspects which interested me. The unassertive nature before the "other" that many women have is seen as a result of society standard of normalcy. A societal normative standard is set and all that do not fit within the threshold of normalcy are put to shame. That many women would feel inadequate in many setting because of this is a result of a sexist society. I think that Barky's classroom examples of men being more assertive, women talking in "women's language", and the difference in the confidences of both groups does paint an interesting picture of the gender shame consciousness gap. I wonder however if this same phenomenon is still as prevalent today. I remember reading many news articles about young boys falling behind in academic performance while many girls and rising in standard. Does this lead to a a change in confidence or is it completely unrelated to performance and is more socially created as Bartky implies? Still I think society is definitely changing. Social controls are is not uniform in their ability to use identity transforming power.

Pastoral Power-- The Rise of Secular Salvation

As Michel Foucault begins his discussion with the relationship between rationalization and excessive power, he wanders away from an individual apparatus of power but moves on to talk about struggle. He describes a series of examples of opposition to traditional authority that he describes as transversal and puts them all into three categories: social, ethnic, and religious. He then goes on to discuss the root power form of this identity subjugation. Pastoral power, as he calls it, is the emphasis on forced conformity to one norm or another as a means of a sort of secular salvation. It is a distinctly different power model than the royal model in that it requires sacrifice of itself "for the life and salvation of the flock" (333). This new pastoral power sets state as a "modern matrix of individualization"(334). Its goal is to globalize and quantify the large population into a privilege of knowledge and then to analyse the individual by this "knowledge standard". What I think is somewhat ironic is that Foucault starts by speaking about rationalization and excessive power and then moves on to rationalize these new forms of power themselves. He sees them everywhere as there are numerous examples throughout his writing here and elsewhere. I see what he is describing but I also feel to some degree that identity needs to developed from somewhere and while he may describe the power of knowledge and its pastoral power application , I don't necessarily disagree with this power form.

The State on Power Relations

I think that it is very interesting that Foucault turns the question not centrally to the power of the state bu to already existing power structures that he sees. I also am intrigued by the idea that he began an in part rejection of simply seeing this power as repressive. To see the state merely as an apparatus for large power struggle relations between various sets is to see much more of what occurs in society. To view the state as a "codification of a whole number of power relations" (123) and to suggest that "revolution is a different kind of codification of the same relations" brings into light the more complex relation of the state to power. This manner of thinking allows the government to be a structure by which power relations fight to exert themselves while the state is no longer merely taking on the role of adversary but as conduit. I think this a far more accurate representation of state's role in the power relationship dialogue. It reminds me that in American, different political groups are often struggling with each other far more than with the state because if a long disenfranchised group finally takes some state power they often leave the state's authoritarian power intact. That is "one can perfectly well conceive of revolutions that leave essentially untouched the power relations that form the basis for the functioning of the state."

Critique of the Gotha Program

I think the Critique of the Gotha program is a particularly interesting reading from Karl Marx. To begin he is very witty in his assault against what he sees as a ideological pervasion and retrograde reforms contained in the Lassalle's contribution. The most interesting and powerful argument made is found on 325. In this section, Marx says that wages are not the value or price of labor but rather the price or value of labor power. That the bourgeoisie notion of wages are to give the worker "permission to work for his own subsistence", working free for a certain time for the capitalist and that this whole capitalist structure is based on extending free work through developing productivity or lengthening the work day is the basis by which Marx calls the system slavery. Basically it is working without ever really gaining access to the means of production rather than a small slice of the surplus distribution of profit. Those with ownership of land and capital gain do not have to work because they can ride on the profit that they derive from owning the means of production and the income of the power of others' labor.

Historical, Cyclical Revolution

What I find interesting above communism itself is Marx's historical interpretation of economics and class. There is a great sense of irony that comes from the change from feudalism to capitalism to communism. Marx describes a defection from a number of the nobility into the bourgeoisie at the end of feudalism and he lays a cyclical pattern of bourgeoisie ideologists who defect to the proletariat(167). Ironically Marx states that, "the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself". (164) I think his analysis of history is interestingly valid but is also lacking the detail that would prevent it from being too subjectively generalized. Marxian analysis remains valid today though because his words from over 150 years ago seem to accurately describe the adverse affects of unrestrained capitalism through industrialism and globalization. It may be argued that his views projected into the future of communist triumphs are far less valid then his historical analysis. It still lays an important way of examining historical economic problems that continue today but his view of change suffers from ideological rigidity.

Money, Master of Itself?

Indeed Marx's view of money is very interesting. Calling Money the "externalized exchange of human production", Marx suggests that money alienates man. He postulates that human production, "the externalized species-activity of man", transfers all its qualities to the mediator, money.

"Man as separated from this mediator thus becomes so much the poorer
as the mediator becomes richer."

What Marx is saying in this portion of text and more, is that money becomes more valuable than the private property and activity of means of production because the power of exchange vested in money is equated with greater value than the natural exchange would dictate. The normal and natural social or human relationship of the exchange has been replaced with the dehumanizing and alienating exchange of externalized private property which is money. This is interesting in that it addresses the questions that I have always had when I cashed a paycheck or paid a bill. Especially today, it seems like there is a disconnect between the work I performed, the personal value of that work to me (opportunity costs included), and the value of agreed upon by employer to pay in the form of externalized exchange private property through money. Something seems amiss this relationship.

Freedom to Govern or be Governed

"For there are no examples so frequent in history, both sacred and profane,
as those of men withdrawing themselves, and their obedience, from the
jurisdiction they were born under [...], and setting up new governments in
other places; from whence sprang all the number of petty common-wealths in
the beginning of ages[....], till stronger, or more fortunate , swallowed
the weaker; and those great ones again breaking into pieces , dissolved into
lesser dominions."

The above quote is one which I found most interesting in chapter VIII from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Not only is it a most valid counterargument against the suggestion that men are not free to create new governments because they are already born into one, but it also describes a seemingly natural cyclical order of government. Locke argues that if men are not free to set up a new government then there must be only one universal monarchy by which all the world is to governed legitimately. This is of course ridiculous because as he suggests not everyone would subject themselves to such remote dominion. The natural order seems to be that when governments become overstretched, men rebel to create new government. The use of history to demonstrate the transience government is very powerful.

The Price and Profit of Poverty

What I found particularly interesting from this reading in the Discourses was Machiavelli's discussion of the usefulness of poverty in several different contexts. Ordinarilly, my first instinct is to see poverty as a negative consequence of human behaviors however Machiavelli justifies its existence as a positive force in a republic. I am not persuaded by Machiavelli's reasoning but I do see some logic in it. In chapter 16, he discusses the true ability as undesirable in times of tranquillity in comparison to men with wealth and or family connections. He suggests that in order for reputable men to take their proper station, times of war must be prolonged or that "keeping the citizens poor so that they cannot corrupt either themselves or others with riches" are two possible remedies.

Once again, I understand what he is saying but I do think that modern society is more complex than this. Also in chapter 25, in talking about poverty of Roman citizens he says: "the avenue to whatever rank or office you wished to obtain was not closed to you on the basis of your wealth , and that Ability was sought after in whatever home she lived". Machiavelli sees poverty as an equalizing force by which wealth and family connections are removed from societal position placement. This may be a generalization of what he is saying but I can not go much further into it in this blog post. Briefly though, I do agree with the importance of frugality and contentment that Machiavelli see in Cincinnatus and other Romans in times of poverty but since terms such as poverty and wealth are relative, I think a strong middle class can fill that place in today's society. I can not help resist however seeing modern parallels in leaders who are chosen by wealth and family connections during peace time who were then "thrust" (or perhaps premeditated) into war.

For 1/25 class: Religion and Power

Machiavelli discusses the importance of religion in Rome and applies its virtue as an essential part of the success of a state. He notes religion as having more meaning to the Romans than the law and describes its good institutions as being the reason for good fortune. Machiavelli also states:

"And as the observance of religious teachings is the reason for the
greatness of republics, in like manner the disdain of the practice is
the cause of their ruin; for where the fear of God is lacking a kingdom
must either come to ruin or be sustained by the fear of a prince who
makes up for the lack of religion."

I think that this is interesting because when this idea is brought to modern day, one can not help but be reminded of the U.S.S.R. The communist state was without religion and a tyrannical communist government struggle to replace religion with fear and propaganda. It may be part of the reason for its eventual ruin. What i would have liked to have asked Machiavelli is how he would have viewed the religious and irreligious hodgepodge that makes up America today.