Shared Sacrifice and Social Responsibility

There are times in history where people are faced with the choices that determine the future of their civilization. The Greeks chose leaders who espoused the ideals of democracy but acted like the dictators they so apparently despised. The Romans fell victim to greed and unfettered expansion that bankrupted their empire. The colonial Americans took arms against the greatest empire the world had ever seen for the sake of ideals and almost nothing else. These choices can can propel people to greatness or doom them to the criticism of historians.

The United States has faced these choices in the past. Astoundingly we have made the correct choices a majority of the time. We abolished slavery, embraced civil rights, and defeated the ambitions of leaders who wanted to conquer the world. And each of those decisions were rooted in the preservation of our ideals. The ideals that were expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. They were eloquently advocated by our forefathers in the Federalist Papers and confirmed by de Tocqueville half a century later. Each generation's conviction to those ideals have been tested. Except our own, until now.

Electing an African American president is not the endgame in our pursuit of a more perfect union. It may be a testament to how far the Civil Rights Movement reached and how much of a premium our generation has put on merit based achievement, but we haven't had to sacrifice anything on our journey. We've been given everything we want and have been told that we can have whatever we want. Our generation defines success not in leadership, responsibility, or sacrifice, but by the amount of dollars we earn. We define our achievements in terms of the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the success of our investment portfolios.

Our generation is starting out with less than our parents. Social security and the welfare system that our grandparents have relied on for financial security is nearly bankrupt. We will have to rely on ourselves more than any American generation in the past. But we can't do it alone. We cannot succeed on individual greed and solitary achievement. We cannot blame the government for all our ills and then shrug our shoulders in apathy at the same time. Change doesn't come merely by casting a ballot. As President Obama said on Tuesday night:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

We must redefine the American dream to fit the strugges of our generation. We cannot be content with living our day to day lives doing something we hate merely to earn a dollar and exist in the limbo of mediocrity. Our generation needs to strive for something more than the 2 car garage house and a 40 hour workweek. We need to realize that the true spirit of patriotism is working to improve the country we live in and the lives of its citizens. As JFK so eloquently put it: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

What use is a mediocre corporate salary when there is no satisfaction that accompanies it? What is life when you help nobody but yourself? The need to survive is understandable, but that need doesn't involve a high definition television or a fancy foreign sports car. It doesn't involve the rampant consumerism and reckless disregard for financial propriety that plague us. It involves the idea that we all have to sacrifice something to make the world we live in a better place. It involves taking responsibility for the shortcomings of our social structure and doing something, anything, to remedy it.

These aren't the tenants of socialism or communism but the basic principles behind the social contract we subscribe to by being citizens of the United States. They are the adhesive that binds us to the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. President Obama's message isn't that he is some sort of messiah promising to lead us out of the cave and into the light. His message is that we have to take the reins of leadership into our own hands in order to fix the problems that this country faces and that we complain about incessantly. We have to abandon the poverty of ambition that has befallen our generation and take arms to fight for something greater: the idea that we rise and fall together, as one.

That is the choice our generation and our successors face. That is what will propel us into the annals of greatness or throw us to the wolves of historic criticism. We are being tested on the same measure as our forefathers were, on our convictions to the ideals of the founding fathers. Let's hope we don't disappoint.

Thank You Senator, But I Respectfully Disagree

As you've probably figured out by now, I'm pretty biased to the left and there is hardly any love for me to lose for the Republicans. I've supported Senator Obama since the early primary season for president and continue to do so through election day. However, I have some disagreements with two of Obama's policies which I find troubling.

The first, and foremost, is the protection of the free market economy. Although that sentence used "protection" and "free market" in the span of a few words, it actually makes sense. Senator Obama, and McCain for that matter, have both spit the words of populism from the pulpit this entire election season. Its all about the middle class, protecting domestic jobs, and doing what is best for main street. Its one way of getting elected, but not the method of governance that I'd agree with.

With respect to the markets, I'm very confident that an Obama presidency will not create protectionist barriers on its own accord. If the rest of the world, reeling from the global financial crisis, were to engage in protectionism, he may have no choice but to do so as well. However, many developing nations and the EU make a living off the globalized economy and wouldn't dare think about protecting domestic markets at the cost of export sales. The only economic policy I worry about from the Obama administration is providing tax incentives to keep jobs in the United States. In other words, create a tax penalty for outsourcing jobs.

Outsourcing gets a bad name around these parts because we view it as stealing domestic jobs. However, what we don't see is the decrease in prices that outsourcing brings to the consumer. Now, I'm no proponent of trickle down, but when a company finds cheaper labor, they will reduce prices and still make a hefty profit. This is fact. Every industry that has outsourced its product has seen a fall in real prices over the past 8 years. Those that are forced to remain domestic (college tuition, movie tickets, etc.) have gone up in real cost. If we are to advance as an economy we must create jobs that former laborers could perform and high tech jobs that pay better wages.

Senator Obama is completely correct in asserting that government needs to take a role in job creation over the next few years. With recession looming large, it is imperative to run a small budget deficit to institute Keynsian adjustments. The private industry isn't going to fix roads, build schools, or redesign the power grid to send renewable power to population centers. Infrastructure and education have always been charges of the state. The government needs to start programs that rebuild roads and the power grid. These require the type of skills that former auto and factory workers have. We can employ the currently unemployed.

As we provide jobs for the industrial generation that preceded us, we should also foster the service industry that follows. The government needs to take a better role in educating the youth of this country. Senator Obama has placed education at the forefront of his political agenda. He plans to invest in early childhood education so that no child enters elementary schools with deficient skills. He wants to give teachers better pay and hold them to higher standards. This is all very good but Senator Obama also prescribes to the culture of poverty. This is something that needs to fundamentally change in our country's view of education.

The culture of poverty states that people from low income backgrounds don't care about education because there is no value placed on it. Parents don't care because they fail to show up to conferences and students don't care because parents don't show an interest. As a result, teachers stop caring about the educational welfare of their students because they feel helpless. Why should I try to teach these kids when they come to class already not caring? The culture of poverty has been proven as a statistical myth.

Senator Obama wants to be paternalistic and impress upon the families of poor students the value of education. Although this is estimable, it isn't very practical. Most of the time parents in low income neighborhoods don't go to conferences or "don't show interest" in their kid's education because they just don't have the time. These people are usually single parents who work multiple jobs in order to make a living wage. They cannot risk getting fired to attend school functions because the jobs they have are in demand in their neighborhood. If they miss work, there is always someone else to take their spot. The just cannot afford to care.

The government should place stricter guidelines on teachers to meet so that they simply don't give up on teaching children. When low income students are asked what their biggest gripe about school is, they overwhelmingly say that they aren't challenged enough . The teachers just don't teach them anything worth learning. When the teachers take that away, then there is no point in coming to school anymore. If the students think they are wasting 8 hours of their day at school, then they simply won't show up and can end up on the street or in jail. So unless we can enact some sort of overarching socioeconomic reform, the government needs to focus more on teaching and less on values.

Ray Bradbury is Still Relevant

I've recently made it a priority in my life to start reading more fiction. I'm sick of endlessly reading the New York Times and the Economist in a futile attempt to stay up to date on government and politics. Not only is it the reiteration of facts on a daily or weekly basis, but reading the news doesn't necessarily facilitate thought. I never really expected it to, but I expected it to at least keep my brain active. Apparently, that isn't the case. Reading facts, and even opinion, can't stimulate the thought required to maintain a keen mind. The words are either telling you stuff that you should remember or telling you how to think. There isn't any work being done or creative thought being spurned. So I decided to introduce more fiction onto the plate.

I decided to start off with a shorter book. I wasn't going to jump into Joyce or Faulker without something to warm up on. Hell, I'm not sure I could have finished Ulysses in college when my reading skills were at their summit. Anyway, I started with Fahrenheit 451 by science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It was only about 150 pages and I remember reading it in high school but not really retaining anything. It didn't resonate with me like books such as A Brave New World or The Great Gatsby. Part of the reason may have been that the subject matter wasn't relevant to me then. But the more likely answer is that I really didn't care or was too ignorant to appreciate Bradbury's work.

The first thing that struck me was Bradbury's prose. He has a special talent for presenting writing that is smooth and quick while also being descriptive. The dialogue between characters flows without much interruption and is quite adept at developing the characters. Needless to say, Bradbury is considered a great writer for a reason. But I'm not qualified to critique a novelist, and this wasn't meant to be a book review.

The second, and more important, thing that struck me was the subject matter of the novel. Bradbury constructed a world where people burn books because they have been found to facilitate thought and therefore take away from communal happiness. The people of Bradbury (dis)utopia are constantly entertained and move so fast that thinking is an afterthought. They constantly listen to radio shows through earpieces, drive at excessive speed in order to concentrate on survival rather than wander in thought, and watch TV on their walls. Sound familiar? Depends on your perspective on the world I guess.

The Atlantic Monthly wrote an article this past summer asking "Is Google Making Us Stoopid". Are we so engorged in a culture of instant gratification that we fail to have deep discussions with each other? Does the instant acquisition of information through the internet take away from the depth of knowledge that we attain? All these are pretty fair questions of society at present. Everywhere I go people are playing games, listening to music, talking mindlessly to others, or playing games on little gadgets. It seems like nobody just takes time out to think anymore.

Bradbury assaults this phenomenon directly. Its quite impressive for a novel that was written in the 1950s before the Internet and telecommunications age. His ancillary characters are so preoccupied by stuff that elitists would consider trivial. The main character's wife constantly talks about her TV shows with her friends and refuses to acknowledge anything else. They talk of war like its some distant subject that doesn't affect them (even though one of the characters' husband at war). The society that Bradbury portrays is one of trivial selfishness. They have a false sense of happiness through ignorance of anything but their own lives. They don't worry about others or anything that goes on outside their television parlor. And ultimately, they are nothing more than drones living their lives at the mercy of consumerism and sleeping pills.

Hopefully we aren't falling into Bradbury's world. Sometimes I wonder.
____________________________________________________________________

I found it satisfyingly ironic that my first novel in my fiction renaissance dealt with consequences of society without books and thought. Here I was worrying about becoming stupid because I wasn't reading books and the first book I read told me my assumption was correct. Bradbury's has inspired me to read what are considered the best fiction novels of all time. I'm going to use this list by Random House to determine what those are. The first one? You guessed it...Ulysses.

The Death of the GOP

A few months ago I wrote about the possible death of the Democratic Party due to the divisive nature of the primary campaign. However, the party seems to have coalesced nicely and any animosity has been marginalized. While watching this campaign play out, it has become increasingly apparent to me that the Democrats, in fact, can achieve Jesse Jackson's dream of a rainbow coalition. They have a broad appeal and an inclusive culture that seemingly fights for the everyman, instead of pretending to be the everyman. The latter of which is what the Republicans do.

The McCain campaign this past week has decided to intensify its attacks on Senator Obama by bringing up his relationship with radical domestic terrorist William Ayers. Apparently Ayers held a housewarming party for Obama when the latter was running for state senate. They live in the same neighborhood and have been involved on some educational committees within that community. Ayer's last bombing, or bombing by his group the Weather Underground, occurred when Obama was eight years old.

So the connection is pretty tenuous. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Chicago and Chicago citizen of the year. Apparently the entire city of Chicago are terrorist sympathizers. However, none of this stops the Republicans from attacking Senator Obama for the association. And in turn, they risk unleashing a culture clash that may ultimately destroy their party.

If you noticed the television during the Republican convention, there was an abundance of one thing. Old white people. And, conversly, the lack of another - minorities and young people. Maybe the young people there looked older because they wore khakis and old man shirts. Anyway, what became apparent is that the GOP is a dying breed. Minorities will outnumber the white majority by 2030 or so. But party association by racial lines is not the Republican Party's direst threat.

This culture war that the Republicans have played since the era of Nixon is finally beginning to catch up with them. The GOP has, for the past 40 years, prospered on the disdain of the elite intellectual class, aka the college educated bunch. They have espoused "small town values" (whatever that means) at the cost of appealing to the educated person. By making smart people look stupid, the GOP has alienated a good portion of its base. Lawyers now donate to the Democrats at a 4 to 1 ratio over the GOP. Doctors and bankers are at 2 to 1. Yes, bankers! How the GOP managed to do that, well I'll tell you.

Every time Sarah Palin talks about Senator Obama hating American because he "palls around with terrorists", she gets an standing ovation from her crowd (along with yells of "Kill Him!" and racial epithets thrown at black members of the press corps). Sure, this may fire up the base and get a positive response from the people who vote Republican because its the party of Jesus, but it makes the GOP the party of the redneck. And that has as much appeal to professional people as going to college has to rednecks. It is self defeating. The GOP has aliented the educated regions of the United States. But they are also alienating another branch of American society.

Whatever populist rhetoric the GOP puts out there this campaign season, it is completely countered by their history and policies. They speak fighting for the common family but only cut taxes for the very wealthy. They talk about providing jobs for "Joe Six Pack" (whoever that is) yet provide tax incentives for outsourcing (which I agree with as sound macroeconomic principle but is still a valid example of hypocrisy). The truth is that the GOP is held hostage to the principles of big business. They adhere to the failed Reagan policy of "trickle down economics" where tax cuts and benefits to the very wealthy somehow will translate into more opportunities for the middle class. With economics such a huge issue in this election, the middle class are paying more attention to these policies and are moving away from the GOP.

The GOP basically disdains the culture of the educated class yet provides policies that are tailored to those same people. They espouse the values of small town America in election years but fail to support their needs when in office. They appeal to prejudice and fear to fire up their base, yet do nothing to allay fears from minorities and "liberals". This is a very dangerous path the GOP and the McCain camp are choosing to walk. By unleashing the tide of a culture war, they not only threaten their very existence, but threaten any racial and civil harmony this country has built during the latter half of the 20th century.

The End of an Era: The Financial Crisis and the Washington Consensus

Since the end of the second world war, the United States has been the primary source of economic and military might throughout the world. The Soviet Union was a worth challenger for a portion of the Cold War but ultimately doomed to failure due to its strict adherence to Communist philosophy. During that time, the United States formulated the policy of Containment which sought to bolster any regime willing to oppose Soviet influence. This, theoretically, would prevent the spread of the Red Scare and avoid direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. To achieve such an end, the United States provided almost unlimited funds to nations in exchange for economic concessions. After the Cold War and into the era of globalization, there were political concessions involved with nation building. This was the Washington Consensus.

The Washington Consensus was a cornerstone of US foreign policy during and immediately after the decline of the Soviet Union. Western leadership believed that open markets would necessarily translate to open politics, also knows and democracy. Essentially, the European Union's path to membership is a successful heir to the Washington Consensus. The goal was to bring developing nations under Washington's umbrella through economic integration. The United States and the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would essential loan nations money on certain conditions. Usually these conditions required low tariffs, free trade agreements, low interest rates, and a transparent political system.

There was no inherent problem with the ideas behind the Consensus. However, its implementation had mixed results. When a nation applied the tenements of the plan, their markets usually grew very quickly. In fact it resulted in hypercapitalism, or, rapid growth with little restraint. This looks great on paper and on government fiscal statistics, but it wreaks havoc socially. The result of this quick capitalsim was that it actually increased the income gap in already divided developing countries. Although the poor were getting richer, they were getting richer at a slower rate than the already rich. So while a poor Argentine could now afford a car, the wealthy class bought planes and influenced politics. This inequity in income led to social movements across many of the nations that implemented the Washington Consensus. The result is the leftist movement, with anti Americanism, sweeping South America.

That was the first knell sounded for the Consensus. The second was the success of economies that rejected Washington's plan. China refused to take part in the trade liberalization that Washington demanded. Instead they devised an authoritarian capitalist model that succeeded on tight corporate regulation and government directed growth. This ran almost completely counter to Washington. The Chinese took their economic growth slowly and carefully integrated their markets in to the world's financial system. Their economy succeeded because the government has absolute power and can direct spending any way it wants. The difference between the Chinese and nationalized movements of the past was that the Chinese understood how to use capitalist markets to make money efficiently. They were brutal in implementation and profitable in result.

This is not an advocacy of the Chinese model of growth. However, it is an example of a nation that has become, in less that 15 years, an economic powerhouse by following exactly the opposite of what the Washington Consensus demanded. A counter to the Chinese model is the Indian model. India actually implemented all the provisions of the Washington Consensus and has succeeded in becoming the fastest growing nation in the developing world. However, their revolution is one that comes from the people instead of from the government. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. The social and political change that hypercapitalism brought upon India has forced the government to listen to the people and adapt to their needs intead of manipulating the people and making them adapt to the will of the government. The enormous beauracracy and slow moving democratic process in India actually helps the country remain stable and adopt to changes as they occur. Success stories like India's are very rare. It only proves that the Washington Consensus can really only work in nations were democracy is practiced and its values are revered. That is why the type of capitalism espoused by Washington works in the United States and India. They share the same democratic values.

The success of China and the petroeconomies (Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia) has given the world another model to strive for: authoritarian capitalism (or, facism). What is interesting is that these models, for the majority, are based on the sale of one commodity, oil. The petro nations are the beneficiaries of the ultimate cash crop. However, their economies are a house of cards compared to the likes of China, India, and Brazil. Once the reliance on oil weakens, or the market price goes down, these economies will face fiscal crisis. They already spend too much of the profits on government spending and not enough on corporate development. This means that while Russia uses its profits from oil to build tanks, Gazprom can't afford to develop new natural gas or oil fields. China uses corporate profits to expand and develop their industries instead of solely bolstering military power. What this all means is that more and more developing countries will use this model for future economic growth instead of a more realistic model. As a result, fewer countries in the developing world will be inclined to implement a democratic model if the authoritarian one can provide financial stability.

In effect, the Washington Consensus was a failure before this financial crises even started. However, the recent collapse of American financial institutions and the contested bailout plan effectively buried the Washington Consensus in the graveyard of history. Now the American model of capitalism, once the paragon of economic development, is now ridiculed as the ultimate flop. Every nation across the world that has been touched by the Washington Consensus or that has no stake in international finance probably feels a bit of Schadenfreude. But what is worse is that America's best tool for spreading democracy was its economic prowess, not its military force. And now we have no justification for our system, no moral authority, and a military that is handcuffed. If our isolation wasn't complete before, it may be now.

Point Proven

Last week, before the Republican National Convention, I wrote a piece (directly below) which espoused the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. It was, admittedly, a biased account of why I personally think the GOP is the party of hypocrisy. However, in watching the RNC and trying to remain as objective as possible, there was no short of grand old hypocrisy coming from the lectern for three nights.

Lets start by going at Mitt Romney. Romney famously declared that "we need change alright. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington!" Obviously the crowd was delighted to hear that.

One thing though: the White House has been held by one of the most conservative presidents in modern history and Congress has been dominated by Republicans for the last 6 of 8 years.

In that time the government has ballooned the deficit by simultaneously cutting taxes and waging two wars. It has increased the size of the bureaucracy and has overseen the most extensive truncation of civil liberties in this nation's history with the Patriot Act.

Romney then goes on to espouse the importance of keeping the "Eastern Elite" out of government, effectively starting the culture war that this election is turning into.

The last time I checked, Romney was the governor of Massachusetts and the former CEO of a private equity firm. Not to mention that he was born into a society were his father was a successful American businessman whose friends were hotel magnates. Sure, Romney has a lot in common with the middle class of America.

I could stop there, but no, I have to move on to Rudy Giuliani. He stated "I guess Barack Obama doesn't think Governor Palin's hometown is...cosmopolitan enough." Great jab from a pro gay, anti gun, thrice married mayor of New York City. This is a guy who used city funds to trip weekend getaways with his mistress to the Hamptons. He knows so much about small town family values.

Obviously, it doesn't stop there with Rudy. "He was...a community organizer. What?" And chuckled very smugly afterwards. I guess dedicating a part of your life to making the world around you a better place is laughable. Tell that to the NYPD and FDNY, Giuliani. They stood by him after 9-11 and he milked it politically as far as possible. Too bad they abandoned him after he tried to extend his mayorship by suspending elections due to being in a state of emergency and mongering fear among the citizens of New York. Hitler, anyone?

Sarah Palin echoed these sentiments in her speech. Right after she espoused the importance of family values and small town communities. So, I guess we should place family and community at the utmost importance but...do nothing about it? Yeah that sounds about right.

Senator Obama only graduated from Harvard Law School and turned down a mulit-million dollar career on Wall Street to travel to one of the worst neighborhoods in the United States to help people find housing, get jobs, and an education. Sure, that's very cosmopolitan and elitist. He's definitely out of touch with that community, even though he still lives there.

I can go on and on here, but I think you get the point. These guys will say anything to win the White House and stay in power. They will exploit the deaths of 3000 Americans to scare you into thinking that they are the only party capable of defending this country. This would make Goebbels proud. McCain's advisers recently disclosed that Palin probably wouldn't have been on the ticket had Hillary Clinton been nominated as VP. Really?

So the Republicans chose a candidate, who could potentially be president, based on a political calculation instead of concrete qualifications. They are in it for their own survival and are willing to sacrifice the leadership and future of the United States for it. Country first, huh?

Grand Old Hypocrisy

I'm going to make some disclaimers before formally starting this post that are aimed at mitigating any sort of anti-Republicanism that my respected colleagues might garner from reading what is below. I'm a registered Democrat. My values and politics are aligned most strongly with that party more so than with the Republicans.

This is so even in the face of the fact that I grew up in Ohio, had friends that owned guns, and have voted Republican in the past. Yes, you heard that right. On top of that, I voted for George W. against John Kerry. What makes me Democrat is that I don't cling to religion very strongly and I'm a minority (which some may argue shouldn't matter, but it does realistically).

So, in essence, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who detests George W. Bush because it is the popular thing to do. Think of me more as a pragmatic center leftist who believes in social equality and the power of the free market. I am, despite my self loathing(but accepting my fate as time progresses), more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy. What I am not is some self indulgent populist who thinks the Republicans are evil and should be vanquished across the River Styx.

All that being said, the GOP, for all its tradition and successful leadership of the past (during the Cold War, not the past 8 years) has become a hub of hypocrisy in American politics.

They are the party that has convinced the American people that the Democrats are big government socialists who are willing to take away your rights, mainly Second Amendment ones, at the drop of hat. However, they are the same party that has increased government spending, bloated the deficit, and has overseen the biggest truncation of civil liberties in the history of the United States with the Patriot Act. They allow possession of firearms but allow the authorities to arrest you under charges of terrorism and tap your phone conversations with no evidence.

What choice to the Democrats want to take away from the American people? What rights are they curtailing? If the possession of firearms are on the same fundamental plane as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the people of this nation have a lot more introspection to do. If conservatives want to control the media, then its all right as long as people in rural American can keep their guns? Is it also alright, then, to limit the choice a woman has during an unwanted pregnancy? Is it in the spirit of Democracy to say that a victim of rape or failure of contraception MUST have the child?

And isn't it impressive that the party that always seeks to maintain its images as the one that protects America is the party that has lead to a policy that makes us seem weak and feeble? Sure September 11th was a national tragedy on an unprecedented scale. And sure the war in Afghanistan was completely warranted. But what about the rest of our foreign policy decisions during the Bush years? We've acted more like a cowering bully who was finally confronted by the kid he was oppressing. We took our bloody nose back to our house, cried to our mommy, and came back with a blinding fury.

Hardly appropriate for the nation which claims to be the great savior of a superpower in a troubled world. The "beacon of light" against an "axis of evil", if you will. All this has led to continuous unilateral action that has alienated our nation on the international scene and diminished our relevance in international affairs. Bush's policies have completely ignored history and turned our nation into a tyrant in the eyes of the world instead of the gentle giant that Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan had built.

The Republican hypocrisy goes further than policy making. It goes into election battles as well. Why is it alright for Republicans to question the service of a Democratic candidate when their own candidate dodged a draft? And why is it that only Republican presidents would be strong enough to lead in the face of adversity. Both World Wars were presided over by Democratic presidents and during the hottest flash point of the Cold War, a Democrat went toe to toe with the Chairman and bought the world from the brink of nuclear war. Hell, the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in battle were ordered by a Democrat.

They shouldn't have a monopoly on national security because they didn't do anything to earn that reputation. Reagan was a great speaker but his policies were hardly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States knew, in the 60s with the Long Telegram, that the Soviet model for economic development was unsustainable. Therefore, all that needed be done was contain the empire. But somehow the Republicans ride this false legacy, and the Second Amendment, into making the American people believe in their supposed machismo.

John McCain is running for president on the fact that he was a soldier in the Vietnam war and was held in captivity for five years. The Democrats are too soft to attack this platform (with the exception of General Clark) and the Republicans have become masters at pulling the strings for this type of candidate. Let me ask you conservatives this: what does being a POW bring to the table in terms of being the president of the United States? I'll answer that for you: very little. Sure we should honor his service and sympathize with his imprisonment, but does that mean we should give him the most powerful executive position in human history?

Simply put, getting shot down in battle is not a ticket to the White House. It doesn't give him any of the executive experience he claims to have. Senator Obama doesn't have much executive experience either, but I'd say he has as much as McCain does. But the Republicans always try to bolster these macho attributes in their candidates because they lack any other back story. McCain can't even use the Internet. He has admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. Would it be appropriate, then, to elect him the leader of the free and globalized world? Yes, the Republicans would say, because he spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton about 40 years ago learning how to govern his cellmates.

So, America, if you want to be duped again in to voting for the "most qualified candidate," vote McCain. He knows nothing about economics, doesn't know how to use 21st century technology, and still thinks the Cold War is active. But, he'll let you keep your guns, was a POW for 5 years, cut taxes for everyone making over $200,000 a year, and recreate the Cold War for nostalgia's sake with his League of Democracies.

I mean, who wants a top tier Ivy League graduate with a degree in law and international relations who turned down potentially millions of dollars from Wall Street to dedicate his life to service as their president anyway?