Kenyon Observer: 02.01.2012 by Gabriel Rom

Inside: Exclusive Interviews with Professors Rutkoff and Melick

the

Kenyon Observer February 1, 2012

The Reality of Freedom of Speech of College Campuses Matt Hershey|page 6

Kenyonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine

The Kenyon Observer February 1, 2012

3 From the Editors 6

Cover Story matt hershey

The Reality of Freedom of Speech on College Campuses

letter to the editors

4 In Response to Tess Waggoner:

Professor Baumann on “A State of Denial” (January 2012) alexander variano

State of Affairs: Professors Talk Policy

8 Interviews with Professors Rutkoff and Melick tommy brown

The Fall of SOPA

10 An Internet Illiterate Congress and Online Activism jacob fass guest columnist

A Sustainable Future President Obama’s State of the Union and Green Energy

Editors-in-Chief Jonathan Green and Gabriel Rom Featured Contributors Ryan Baker, Tommy Brown, Matt Hershey, Richard Pera and Alexander Variano Contributors Jacob Smith, Tess Waggoner and Yoni Wilkenfield Layout/Design Will Ahrens Illustrator Nick Nazmi Faculty Advisor Pamela K. Jensen The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College. The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto- the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to Jon Green (greenj@kenyon.edu) or Gabriel Rom (romg@kenyon.edu).

richard pera

14 Why Republicans Are Reluctant to Support Mitt Romney

Cover Art by Larry Miller (Creative Commons Liscense) Quotes from brainyquote.com Cover Art andAll Illustrations by Nick Nazmi Quotes Compiled Images Used Under Creative Commons Liscensesby Ryan Baker

FROM THE EDITORS

Dear Prospective Reader, The Kenyon Observer is excited to bring your our latest issue, which attempts to distill some sense of clarity from the many notable events that have occurred both on our campus and in our country since we last went to print. We are also proud to feature our first full-length guest submissions since our revival, along with our first interviews. From Observer staff in this issue, Tommy Brown discusses the implications that can be drawn from the debate over SOPA, Richard Pera offers a conservative critique of Mitt Romney, and Matt Hershey argues that conservative speech is not always considered free speech on college campuses. Guest contributions to this issue include Jacob Fass ’15 analyzing President Obama’s defense of America’s clean energy industry in his State of the Union Address, Professors Melick and Rutkoff sitting down with Zan Variano to discuss issues raised during the Center for the Study of American Democracy’s Tea Party/Occupy Wall Street Forum, and Professor Baumann responding to Tess Waggoner’s column in our last issue regarding the history of the Palestinian people. We invite our readers to agree, disagree, and engage with our staff and contributors in this issue. It is our hope that the commentary provided here will provoke thought and conversation away from these pages. As always, we invite letters and full-length submissions either in response to content in this issue or on other topics of interest. Your Editors, Gabriel Rom and Jonathan Green Editors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

“Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.” Italian Proverb

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

In Response to Tess Waggoner: PROFESSOR BAUMANN ON “A STATE OF DENIAL” (JANUARY 2012)

Editors: Congratulations on re-founding the Observer and especially on your mission to offer “pan-ideological” (ugly term that) commentary. That was the original purpose of the Observer’s predecessor, edited by Doug Heuck. Still, it seems only appropriate to begin by arguing with one of your writers. Many of us are caught up in current news and current polemics. Nothing wrong with that, but it helps, especially on a subject as historically fraught as the Arab-Israeli issue, to be able to go back into history and see how the present circumstances came about. Tess Waggoner describes Newt Gingrich’s assertion that the Palestinians are an invented people as a “longstanding falsehood propagated since the founding of the State of Israel.” She argues both the undeniable fact that during the Ottoman Empire the population was overwhelmingly Arab and that it was Palestinian because there were cultural differences “including food, dance, music, embroidery, jewelry and more” between the Arabs who lived in the province of Palestine and other Arabs. In fact, however, the issue isn’t culture but where the claims of the Arabs who lived in Palestine to a political state come from. And there Arab sources speak unambiguously. In 1946, when the partition plan for separate Jew-

ish and Arab states was being planned, an AngloAmerican Committee of Inquiry held hearings. The situation then was that everyone understood by the word “Palestinian,” the Jewish settlers. What is today the Jerusalem Post, for instance, was the Palestine Post. And the Arabs, both in Palestine and out, were adamantly opposed to partition. They wanted the whole of the Mandate to be Arab. Thus, the great Arab historian Philip Hitti, testifying before that committee, stated “There is no such thing as Palestine in [Arab] history, absolutely not.” He meant, not that the Arabs of Palestine didn’t exist, and surely he might have admitted that there were some cultural differences between them and other Arabs (why not?), but that he shared the mainstream Arab and Palestinian position in denying that the Palestinians could be sundered from the Arab people as a whole and that there was a specific political or national identity. Until 1967, this was the position of the Arab League and of, for that matter, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Only, for the most part, after 1967, when the Israelis conquered the West Bank and Gaza, did the PLO under Yasser Arafat begin to make the argument for the Palestinians as a separate people. This was done precisely for tactical reasons, to win support from Westerners sympathetic

“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.” Mao Zedong

to national liberation movements, and to turn Israel from the little guy defending itself against the whole Arab world, into the big bully, pushing around the poor, occupied Palestinians. But the ultimate goal of destroying Israel never changed, as Arafat himself and his successors have always been perfectly clear about. But is this just me making Zionist propaganda? Well, here is Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, in a 1977 interview in the Dutch periodical Trouw: “the Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” Pretty straightforward, isn’t it? But, Ms.Waggoner might reasonably argue, so what? Does it matter if the Palestinians once didn’t think they were a nation, but now do? After all, American national identity evolved from a British colonial identity once too. Isn’t what matters that here and now Palestinians think of themselves as a separate nation? Good point; and I agree. That is why the Israeli government has offered peace on the basis of partition with the Palestinians, at least three times since 2000. And I, like Charles Krauthammer and many other Zionists, think Gingrich was wrong to bring up the whole matter. But, since it has come up, it does have some importance. It helps explain the otherwise inexplicable, that is why the Palestinians have always rejected their own state if it meant living in peace with Israel. It helps explain the deliberate and bizarre Arab attempts to trace a Palestinian origin to the ancient Canaanites or Jebusites or to deny the Jewish heritage in Jerusalem. Whether Palestinian Arabs today think of themselves as part of the Arab nation, as “South Syrian” (as some did), or as Palestinian, until Palestinian leaders can accept coexistence with Israel, Palestinian nationalism’s inner

meaning will continue to be “no Israel.” Today, both Hamas and the most “moderate” representatives of the PLA still agree with Zahir Muhsein about what is really at stake, namely an Arab state, as they like to put it, “from the river to the sea.” Thus, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, of Hamas said in 2006: “We [aim to liberate] all our lands… If we have the option, we will establish a state on every inch of land within the 1967 [borders], but this does not by any means imply that we will relinquish our right to all the Palestinian lands. We want all of Palestine from [Ras] Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river.” And here, in his last interview, in the newspaper Al-Arabi, Faysal al-Husseini, a leading Palestinian figure, a great supporter of the Oslo negotiations, who was described as “moderate” by no less an authority than CNN, explains that the whole negotiation process was just a “Trojan Horse” to fool the Israelis and the Americans: “Similarly, if we agree to declare our state over what is now only 22% of Palestine, meaning the West Bank and Gaza – our ultimate goal is [still] the liberation of all historical Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.” Well, if the Palestinians themselves call their claim to have their nationality recognized by a separate state living in peace with and alongside Israel a “Trojan Horse,” what should we make of Ms. Waggoner’s indignation about it being called that? Thus the issue isn’t and never has been, about a Palestinian state or a Palestinian national identity. It is, whether the attempt, following the line of Mr. Muhsein, Mr. Al-Zahar, and Mr. Husseini, to delegitimize any Jewish presence in the land of Israel and to claim it all for the Arab, should and will succeed. Contrary to Ms. Waggoner, the issue has never been the right of Arabs to be what they want or call themselves what they want. The issue has always been the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own. Sincerely, Fred Baumann Professor of Political Science

“A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes.” James Fiebleman

MATT HERSHEY

The Reality of Freedom of Speech on College Campuses Our universities are supposedly the “market places professors identified themselves as liberal: a whopping of ideas.” They are lauded for their commitment to 87 percent. While Kenyon might be somewhat of an intellectualism and academic rigor. Ideally, when a stu- exception to this statistic, the national figures are still dent attends college or university, she is exposed to a quite jarring. What could account for these staggering variety of ideas and learns to how to examine the valid- differences? Are there simply more liberal intellectuity of her own beliefs. Unfortunately, higher education als than conservative ones? This is unlikely, as there in America today rarely lives up to this ideal. Over the are twice as many conservative think tanks than liberal past several decades, colleges ones. In fact, the most prohave become over-saturated lific and famous think tanks ver the past several de with professors and adminislike the American Entercolleges have be trators who not only subscribe cades prise Institute and Cato are to one political ideology, but conservative. (Please note: come over saturated with also actively try to silence opthis discrepancy is not due posing views. Setting aside the professors and administra to some evil plan on behalf irony of this article appearing of the Koch brothers). in a journal dedicated to diver- tors who not only subscribe Could the disparity in sity of opinion, looking at this to one political ideology the proportion of liberal intellectual crisis of sorts on a to conservative professors national scale tells a much dif- but also actively try to si be accounted for by someferent story. thing like discriminatory lence opposing views It is no secret that there hiring practices? The Uniare many more liberal profesversity Of Iowa College Of sors in America’s universities than conservative ones. Law recently found itself in hot water over such an A 2005 study by George Mason University professor allegation. Teresa R. Wagner, a conservative RepubliRobert Lichter surveyed 1,643 full time university pro- can who had previously taught at the George Mason fessors and found that 72 percent identified as liberal, University School of Law believes that she was refused with only 11 percent identifying as conservative. At a job at Iowa due to her political beliefs. The United elite colleges and universities like Kenyon, even more States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seems

, -

“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lord.” Machiavelli

to agree as it unanimously decided to hear her case, ruling that there was enough evidence to suggest that the dean of the University Of Iowa College Of Law denied Ms. Wagner employment because of her political beliefs. Indeed, out of the fifty faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law, only two are registered Republicans. Even if colleges do not actively discriminate against conservatives, one might attribute the imbalance to a “bird of a feather” effect, where strongly liberal college faculties encourage those of a similar persuasion to pursue careers in academia, and dissuade conservatives from even trying. Ironically, colleges emphasize diversity amongst their student bodies, but not their faculties. Many professors have even discriminated against students for voicing opposing political beliefs. At Georgia Tech, when a student told her professor that she planned to attend the conservative conference CPAC, he let her know that she would fail his class. As promised, the professor failed the student on her first test and reportedly made anti-conservative remarks in class. The student eventually dropped the class. At Metropolitan State College in Denver, a student protested in front of the Colorado legislature that he was thrown out of a course because of his political beliefs. Instead of failing him, his professor politely informed him that he didn’t want his “right-wing views in my classroom.” To the credit of the administrators of the University of Colorado System, they eventually reprimanded the professor (after a strong push from the college Republicans and a conservative advocacy group). Cases like these happen all the time. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) combats the abuse of university power to silence certain beliefs. A cursory search on their website reveals rampant discrimination: Auburn University banned a Ron Paul window sign; Binghamton University suspended a student for hanging posters criticizing The Department of Social Work and Government Agency; and Bucknell prohibited students from protesting Obama’s stimulus package and affirmative action, among countless other examples. Interestingly enough, Kenyon College received a red-light from FIRE, the organization’s lowest grade for colleges and universities. Kenyon has earned the unfortunately common red-light designation due to our harassment and discrimination policies. How exactly do colleges limit free speech on their campuses? In addition to an army of professors with

near-uniform ideologies, “Speech Codes” restrict First Amendment rights with dubious legal basis. Colleges often limit students’ First Amendment rights in the name of preventing “harassment,” a legal term which has been perverted into the “right not to be offended.” Universities broadly define harassment as anything from “negative attitudes or opinions” to “mocking.” At Northeastern Illinois University, students held an affirmative action bake sale, a common campus protest that prices baked goods according to racial or ethnic profiles. The idea is to communicate what each student is “worth” to university administrators. Regardless of the arrogance of such a protest, this freedom of expression is constitutionally protected. NEIU prohibited the protest, claiming that it violated a nondiscrimination policy. But NEIU allowed a feminist group to hold a similar “pay equity bake sale,” which protested alleged discrepancies in male versus female salaries. Ultimately, campus speech codes violate the Constitution while creating a double standard as to who can express themselves and who cannot. What are the harms of an almost uniformly liberal pool of college professors and even administrators? Surely private universities and colleges ought to be allowed to promote whatever agenda they please. However, our universities are advertised as bastions of intellectualism and thought. Students are supposed to be taught how to think, not indoctrinated to think a certain way. While it feels nice to have one’s opinions consistently reaffirmed, never facing intellectual challenge encourages our university students to go through life without ever truly examining their beliefs. Once one refuses to examine opposing views, she is no longer a student, but an ideologue. Moreover, a snide comment by a professor about the Tea Party or conservatives could discourage a student with those beliefs from voicing her opinion in the classroom, depriving students of important discourse and argument. This could hold true for liberals as well, it just unfortunately happens far more frequently to conservatives. It is truly profound how the rights students enjoy outside of the walls of academia immediately disappear once they step onto campus. If our universities truly wish to be the bastions of intellectual diversity they claim to be, they should eliminate speech codes and actually encourage a diversity of opinion amongst their faculty. TKO

“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton

ALEXANDER VARIANO

State of Affairs: Professors Talk Policy INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSORS RUTKOFF AND MELICK After the Center for the Study of American Democracy’s faculty panel on the Tea Party and Occupy movements, the Observer interviewed two panelists. Alexander Variano talks inequality, education and class-consciousness with Professor Rutkoff, and regulation, finance and taxes with Professor Melick.

Peter M. Rutkoff Professor and Chair of American Studies Director of Kenyon Academic Partnership TKO: If incomes have risen in absolute terms at both ends of the spectrum—by 18 percent for the bottom quintile and 275 percent for the top 1 percent in real terms between 1979 and 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office—why should we care about increasing inequity in how the gains are distributed? PMR: The discrepancy in prosperity is intolerable for a democratic society. For political democracy to work, you need a relative—though not absolute—sense of equity and partnership. A democracy rests on the ability to serve its citizens, so if you have this kind of inequality the poorest

Americans feel disenfranchised. TKO: America spends more on education perpupil than every country except Switzerland, yet test scores are unchanged from thirty years ago. What’s the problem? PMR: The wisdom of late suggests that the money is not always fully delivered to the classroom. Static estimates of the amount spent per student can be misleading if you don’t know how much ultimately makes it into the classroom. Class size is also important to look at. TKO: What fixes that? More programs like the Kenyon Academic Partnership? What about charter schools? PMR: Partnerships help. But consider Bill Gates, America’s richest man. He decided to direct his fortune towards his foundation to really shape up our schools. But the problem is so serious that by the time the money was divided up among all the districts that needed it, the amount per district was trivial. In such a huge country with so many districts, only the government is capable of really dedicating the resources necessary to improve things. Local property taxes fund schools, but nobody wants to authorize higher levies. How can you educate kids—our economic future—with no money? As for charters, the evidence I’ve seen suggests no improvement in student performance. In

“Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power.” Aldous Huxley

that case, charters just take money out of the budgets for public schools, which hurts the system. TKO: What are the broader implications of the class-consciousness emphasized by Occupy? PMR: At the moment politically, when protestors identify as “the 99 percent”—in effect, the have-nots—they become self-consciously aware of their place in the economic realm. They have done what the Marxists always wanted the working class to do. Why haven’t we always had a labor party or socialist party like in Europe? Because there wasn’t an aristocracy or class enemy. But the 1 percent now represent this as a concept, though maybe not in fact.

William R. Melick Gensemer Professor of Economics Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisors (2001-2002) TKO: What is regulatory capture, how does it occur and why does it happen so frequently? WRM: It’s almost inevitable because when policymakers say, “I want somebody to regulate the railroads, or the financial sector,” who do they turn to? The people who have expertise in those areas: railroad executives and financial executives. It’s almost impossible not to have this sector-specific view. Sooner or later, the regulator becomes sympathetic to the regulated, and that in my mind is regulatory capture. I don’t see it as some sort of nefarious plot, necessarily, where policymakers conspire to do it. It almost happens naturally. TKO: Did special interests ever complicate your job at the White House? WRM: On the farm bill, for instance, economists easily agree that a lot of provisions are not welfare-enhancing for the economy as a whole. But the guys from the Department of Agriculture have a narrower lens because they look at the farming community that benefitted from that legislation. Most of the money went to large corporate farms. The agencies with a narrower focus usually win because the benefits are concentrated and the costs are diffused.

TKO: What accounts for the boom in investment banking starting in the 1980s? WRM: I think the rise of investment banking was more of a technological phenomenon than a legislative one. For parallel banking and shadow banking, the computing revolution made it much easier to keep track of information and introduced new securities that couldn’t otherwise be constructed. TKO: Did the consolidation of investment and commercial banking operations contribute to the financial crisis? WRM: The erosion of Glass-Steagall does not appear to have been a significant contributor to the cause of the crisis. In fact, you could argue that Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999, contributed to the resolution of the crisis. It was the standalone investment banks—Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns—that ran into the most trouble because they didn’t take advantage of becoming diversified holding companies. Since these banks didn’t change their behavior after the fact, it doesn’t seem like Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the major culprit that some think it was. TKO: Why so much confusion about what constitutes capital income, who makes it and how it’s taxed? Should investment profits be taxed lower than labor income? WRM: I want to encourage people to save, so I don’t want to punish them too heavily when they realize income from those savings—the capital gains tax will be different from the labor income tax. But that’s just a complicated second-best solution after the obvious one: if you want saving, stop taxing savings and tax consumption instead. The mess that is the tax code leads to a lot of faulty inference: people get confused about what exactly capital gains are, or if they’re evil. When things get opaque, people have trouble making sound decisions. And what’s more opaque than the tax system? TKO: What are the consequences of this complexity? How can the tax code be simplified? WRM: We could just switch over to a consumption tax, but we much prefer a complicated system, in part to keep attorneys and accountants gainfully employed. And the bigger you are, the cleverer you can be: the statutory rates apply to the least sophisticated filers who can’t afford an advisor to show them how to minimize their taxes. If people are willing to change the timing of their death based on what estate taxes will be in effect at that time, they’ve got to be willing to change other behaviors in response to taxes as well. I hope this encourages us to move towards a more rational tax code.TKO

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity. Photos courtesy of kenyon.edu.

TOMMY BROWN

The Fall of SOPA AN INTERNET-ILLITERATE CONGRESS AND ONLINE ACTIVISM

On January 18th, the Internet went dark. Sites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Mozilla shut down in protest to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and its counter-part Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate. As a result of the action taken by websites across the web, as well as their organized efforts to lobby Congress, it seems that SOPA and PIPA are on their way out. In the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) postponed a vote on the bill to work out disagreements, and in the House, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the sponsor of the bill, has delayed the House Judiciary Committee from considering the legislation. The two bills certainly livened the debate on how to protect intellectual property in the Internet-age, but more importantly they highlighted how fundamentally misunderstood the Internet is by members of Congress. Thankfully, we have moved past the era in Congress when the Internet was simply known as a “series of tubes,” as Fmr. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put it in 2006. As their names would suggest, both bills are Congress’ most recent attempt to curb online piracy. The problem is that these bills wouldn’t have any serious impact on piracy. Any legal action would be against American companies, not against their users who are the ones actually committing the crime of in-

tellectual property theft. While it is easy to scapegoat both Bit Torrent and the Pirate Bay for facilitating illegal online sharing, it is the users, not the companies, that commit the crime. The way the bills are drafted, it would be illegal for any website to link to illegal content; the problem is that this would apply to all websites based in the United States. Websites like YouTube, Reddit, and Wikipedia have been able to grow at an exponential rate because they depend on user-submitted content. If SOPA or PIPA were to pass it would hold these websites more accountable for the content their users submit. Punishing websites for the crimes their users commit solves a problem that doesn’t exist by creating scores of problems that shouldn’t exist. As we saw in the financial sector, with the proliferation of new financial products outside of regulation such as credit-default swaps, technology always evolves faster than the legislation that regulates it. While the sponsors of the bills are well intentioned in trying to stop online piracy, they should not be regulating something they fundamentally misunderstand. This lack of understanding, though, is something Congress has the ability to overcome: expert testimony at committee sessions has always been a great tool in drafting legislation. Congress did consult both the

“Politics, n: Poly ‘many’ + tics ‘blood-sucking parasites’” Larry Hardiman

Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, but failed to consult Internet executives until there was already serious discontent with the legislation. Now that the bills have been tabled, the question is why Congress didn’t work with the real Internet experts from the very beginning. The sheer number of original cosponsors of the bills that are now opposed to them shows that the level of support for SOPA/PIPA in Congress would be very different if they had consulted the executives of Google and the Internet generally rather than the lobbyists of the RIAA. For tunately for the every-day Wikipedia user, even if Congress fails to solicit input from people who actually understand the Internet, the Internet is capable of advocating for itself. As elections since 2004 have shown us, the Internet is a powerful tool for political organizing. Barack Obama’s use of new media in the 2008 election, the increasing importance of what stories are ‘trending’ on Twitter, and the fact that YouTube hosted a presidential debate are all evidence of this. However, the protests against SOPA and PIPA show that, beyond lobbying for a particular interest, candidate, or party, the Internet is capable of defending itself. The Wikimedia Foundation, Google, and Reddit played

their first significant role in lobbying for the interest of the Internet. The depth at which the Internet permeates our society and economy could be seen when, without the help of high-paid lobbyists, the web rallied enough opposition to the bills to lead to their demise. This was a referendum on the freedom we enjoy through the Internet, a resounding victory to the openness of the Web, and an effort that was only possible thanks to the unbelievably widespread use of the Internet. As the Internetsavvy generation becomes more politically active, I think that we will see the “series of tubes” become a much more integrated tool for political advocacy, a genuine avenue for true free speech, and a powerful force in the politiNICK NAZMI cal sphere of the 21st century. We are already seeing signs of this. The State Department asked Twitter to avoid going down for routine maintenance after the Iranian elections in 2009; many credit the web as an organizing tool in helping the successful Egyptian revolution as well. Wikileaks would not have been possible without the Internet’s ability to disseminate information to anyone and everyone with access to a computer. In this age, Wikileaks will play a more important role than the Pentagon Papers, and it will be interesting to see how our elected representatives react. TKO

“The only Zen you find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring up there.” Robert M. Pirsig

JACOB FASS guest columnist

A Sustainable Future PRESIDENT OBAMA’S STATE OF THE UNION AND GREEN ENERGY

The most striking thing about President Obama’s State of the Union address was not his defense of economic fairness and opportunity, his focus on the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, the long list of laudable but small bore policy initiatives, or even the bad jokes (spilled milk, anyone?). What surprised me, and most political commentators, was the President’s unabashed defense of federal investments in clean energy in the face of political controversy and unrelenting criticism from the right. After the failure of Solyndra, a cylindrical solar panel manufacturer which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, many expected Obama to remain silent on energy and the environment. After all, for many conservatives consider investment in clean energy technology to be a politically motivated boondoggle or the fantasy of environmental extremists. Many others see clean energy as currently mired in scandal, a dangerous subject for a sitting President to broach under the current circumstances. It was widely assumed that President Obama would try to pivot away from the subject and certainly not pick a fight on it, but pick a fight is exactly what he did. The President

framed his defense for clean energy investment by rightfully noting the long history of government support for fossil fuels, an expensive handout for an industry that is already well established in the marketplace: “We have subsidized the oil industry for a century. That’s long enough. Its time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been profitable and double down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass these clean energy tax credits now and create these jobs.” Environmentalists were euphoric about the election of President Obama, who once promised in a speech that the oceans would begin to recede upon his election. While this may have been a grandiose claim, it accurately describes the threat of global climate change and many were ecstatic to finally have a leader who recognized this threat. In office, his policies have been a mixture of transformative decisions (new stringent rules on fuel mileage and the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline) and disappointing ones (he decision to reject the EPA’s tough smog regulations that would have been hugely beneficial to the environment and human health). However, perhaps his biggest environmental accomplishment

“A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.” Albert Einstein

lies in the Recovery Act, which contained the most support for clean energy in history: more than $90 billion in sustainable energy tax credits, smart grid construction, and green battery technology. And despite claims that this money has been funneled into the pockets of political cronies (I invite skeptics to visit recovery.gov to see where the money has been spent), it has had a real impact on a fledging American clean energy industry that is competing with massive Chinese subsidies. Last Friday’s New York Times reported that government help along with technological progress had driven down the costs of wind turbines and solar panels. But without further incentives companies will not be able to make the all-out push to develop new technologies that can truly deal with climate change. President Obama acknowledged the political difficulties of passing such a plan in speech. After the failure of American Clean Energy and Security Act in 2009, most have given up hope for any real solution to the problem. The legislation would have set a cap on carbon emissions and forced companies that exceeded the limit to buy emissions credits from other companies that were below the limit. This sort of market based addresses conservative fears about the government picking winners and losers and politics being involved in the businesses decisions of

firms and a similar approach was effectively used by George H.W Bush to dramatically reduce acid rain. The conventional wisdom is that any such effort is dead, not just for this Congress, with its mixture of obstructionism and climate change denial, but for years to come. But by going on the offensive in this speech and in first campaign ad, which deals with energy, the President has signaled he is willing to engage this issue in the court of public opinion. Americans responded to the clean energy segments of the speech nearly as favorably as they did to mentions of the death of Osama Bin Laden and the American people overwhelmingly believe that clean energy is the wave of the future. If he is willing to follow up on the speech and in a second term “throw the entire weight of his Presidency behind the issue” as he suggested in a Rolling Stone article last year then he may have a mandate for serious change. Conventional wisdom holds that this a political loser in an election overwhelmingly focused on the economy. But this sort of wisdom has been wrong before, and if the President continues to challenge it he gives me and other environmentalists hope that he will fully live up to the promise of his election and in the words of his former advisor Van Jones be remembered not as “the first black President but as the first green one.” TKO

Interested in Politics? Have an Opinion? Why not write for the Observer? Contact us at tko@kenyon.edu

“If there’s only one answer, then this must not be a very interesting topic.” Ron Jeffries

RICHARD PERA

Why Republicans Are Reluctant to Support Romney In the wake of former House Speaker Newt Gin- to relate to the electorate. Upon examination of the grich’s convincing victory in the South Carolina GOP remaining GOP candidates, none is further detached primary this past week, the Republican presidential from the average Republican voter than Romney. nomination is officially up for grabs. Since summer, Newt Gingrich was raised on military bases by his countless politicos predicted mother and adoptive faa swift and easy coronation ther, later gaining wealth pon examination of the from teaching and political for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the remaining candidates careers. Texas Represen2012 GOP nominee. The distative Ron Paul was born sonance between the expecta- none is further detached to a small dairy farmer in tions of pundits and electoral Pennsylvania, later servepubli outcomes begs the question: from the average ing as an Air Force flight what has been keeping so can voter than surgeon for five years beomney many Republicans from backfore beginning a successful ing Romney? medical practice. Former Most people will agree that among the four re- Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, the son of Italmaining candidates, Romney has the best head-to- ian immigrants, grew up in Appalachia and the Midhead shot at defeating President Obama. If almost west, later earning a living as a lawyer. Republicans every Republican believes that the number one prior- can relate to these three candidates; each started from ity is removing the President from office, why slow a modest upbringing, far from the glare of big city Mitt’s momentum? The answer: Republicans neither lights. identify with nor trust him. Romney is just the opposite. One of a candidate’s greatest assets is his ability Born to a very wealthy automobile executiveand

GOP

“A man always has two reasons for what he does-a good one, and the real one.” J.P. Morgan

Michigan Governor in Detroit, Mitt Romney received his secondary education at an elite prep school outside of the city. His later education included an undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University and dual degrees from Harvard University’s Business and Law Schools. Later, Romney co-founded Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that enjoyed astounding financial success. In 2002, Romney won the Massachusetts gubernatorial election, a position that he held for just one four-year term through 2007. Now he is running for President for a second time. Not exactly the average Joe. The other important reason why Republican voters are hesitant to vote for Romney has to do with his political record. First, it is short, especially compared to the multiple House terms of Gingrich and Paul and two Senate terms of Santorum. Second, he was the chief executive of one of the most liberal states in the country; one does not achieve such a position without detaching himself from at least some standard conservative principles. Romney has switched his opinion on social issues (most notably on gay marriage and abortion) since leaving the Governor’s mansion. This contrasts with others like Congressman Paul, who takes pride in espousing the same views for decades. Even more alarming is his past support for the individual healthcare mandate legislation that he signed into law in Massachusetts, which is eerily similar to Obamacare. Moreover, Tea Party supporters likely view Romney’s huge increases in state “usage fees” as tantamount to tax increases. Third, Romney continues to avoid discussing his faith. Although he is legally not required to do so, millions of staunch con-

servatives are deeply concerned over how Mormonism affects his vision for the country. Having been a bishop in Massachusetts, Romney takes his faith quite seriously, yet refuses to elaborate on Mormon theology, including denial of the Trinity and belief that Christ appeared to American Indians soon after his death. This is very distressing for evangelicals, many of whom have called upon fellow Christians to refrain from supporting Romney and his “cult” in any election. The Governor has yet to have a “JFK moment;” in which he reassures conservative Christians the way John F. Kennedy successfully convinced non-Catholics that the Vatican would play no role in American government if he were to be elected. Following his humiliating defeat in South Carolina, Romney reorganized his campaign. Part of this plan included release of his 2010 tax returns, which revealed a $21.7 million income. The Romney campaign was quick to point out that he nearly matched his $3 million in federal taxes with charitable contributions, but half of those contributions ($1.5 M) were to his church, which requires an annual tithe of 10 percent. For many Republicans, Romney’s background does not evoke trust. And for a nation with a jobless rate 8.5 percent, it is hard to back the millionaire who jokes that he, too, is unemployed. How can typical Republicans relate to a millionaire with an inconsistent political record who has spent almost his entire life nestled in distant cities? They cannot. Romney, coming from landed aristocracy exuding Ivy League pretentiousness, simply cannot relate to rural Americans. Unfortunately for him, that demographic makes or breaks the GOP nomination. TKO

Nite Bites Café Don’t Study on an Empty Stomach! Smoothies! Coffee! Paninis!

Nothing more expensive than $3.50! Advertisement

“The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you’re still a rat.” Lily Tomlin

RYAN BAKER

Tired of being put down by large corporations? Done with that sharp pain in your foot when you stub your toe? Sick of seeing all-powerful banks ruining the lives of millions in foreclosures? Fed up with walking in mud on Middle Path? Have any complaints at all?

OCCUPY GAMBIER Only together can we end the reign of mom & pop small businesses infesting our village and oppressing the 99%. We wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t accept the tyranny of corporations; and when we make our stand, the 1,871 residents of Gambier will be sure to stand with us. We will gather outside of the local seat of power of the 1%: The Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bank of Gambier.

Please be sure to bring your iPhones (to film and mupload the event) and North Faces (it might rain).