MichiganReview THE
The Journal of Campus Affairs at the University of Michigan www.michiganreview.com
VOLUME XXVII
November 4, 2008
Tough Decisions & The Candidates’ Positions A Summary of the Presidential Candidates on Iraq, the Economy, Health Care, Trade, Energy, Education and Drugs
PAGES 6 & 7
ELECTION EXCLUSIVE
EXCLUSIVE
Changing Conservatism
After the Bush Years, Where Does the Conservative Movement in America Go? Does It Need a Facelift? Should It Harken Back to Past Ideals? Or Should It Stick to Its Guns and Ride Out the Storm?
OBAMA SPEAKS WITH JANE COASTON
PAGES 8 & 9
ON BACK
Jumping the Education Hurdle How Alma Mater Matters
ILLUSTRATION JONATHAN SLEMROD & EUN LEE / MR STAFF
BY BRITTANI KAGAN ‘11
In today’s education-obsessed society, a U.S. presidential candidate could never make it past the primaries without an Ivy League degree. With President Bush holding an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a M.B.A. from Harvard University, academic expectations have certainly increased since the
days of Abraham Lincoln who did not even graduate from college. These days, however, the American public has come to associate higher capability with high levels of education. This almost unrecognized transition begs the question – when did college start mattering for candidates?
Controversy Over Voter Registration
Voter Registration Across the Nation
us.
Probably when it started mattering to the rest of
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2006 enrollment reached 20.5 million students in two- and four-year colleges and universities, including those in EDUCATION Continued on PAGE 5
The Road to the White House
Full of Potholes and
A Look at Voting Out of State
Misleading Road Signs
BY VALIANT LOWITZ ‘12
BY CHRISTINE HWANG ‘10
BY NATHAN TORREANO ‘12
With Election Day less then one week away, most voters feel secure in their choices for President of the United States. But can they feel secure that their votes will actually count? Fraudulent voter registration applications have
Being the eighth largest state in electoral votes gives plenty of reason for out-of-state students to vote in Michigan. This year, in particular, many out-of-state students based their decisions on where to vote on the fact that Michigan was initially considered a swing state and is more of a swing state than their home states. Some of the people who decided to vote in Michigan come from the South, the generally “red” portion of the country. “I am voting in Michigan because at the time of registration it was a battleground state, meanwhile my home of Alabama was and is conservative and will not change anytime soon,” commented LSA Senior Adam
During the Presidential debates of the 2008 election, both Senators Obama and McCain were guilty of several factual errors that impugned the character or actions of their opponent. These errors, as reported by the non-partisan website factcheck.org, related to tax policy, Social Security, the candidate’s histories, and the presidential hopeful’s plans for leadership in the White House. Factcheck.org put together a comprehensive list of these mistakes and allegations. “John McCain is George Bush III.” “Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.”
VOTING Continued on PAGE 13
CONTRADICTIONS Continued on PAGE 13 & 14
mail to
ACORN Continued on PAGE 13
www.michiganreview.com
10.30.2008 4.1.08
PAGE 2
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW www.michiganreview.com
Editorial Board
An Announcement from The Michigan Review
The Michigan Review was awarded the “Best New Media” award by the Collegiate
Lindsey Dodge Editor-in-Chief
Network at the Western Division Editor’s Conference on October 25th.
Jane Coaston Executive Editor
The paper was recognized for its use of blogs, its imaginative design and website,
Adam Pascarella Managing Editor Eun Lee Graphic Design Editor Jonathan Slemrod Editor-at-Large Nathan Stano Assistant Editors Business Staff Karen Boore Publisher Jonathan Slemrod Anna Malecke Associate Publishers Michael O’Brien Editor Emeritus Staff Writers & Photographers
(in alphabetical order)
Alex Chiriyath, Anna Dickey, Zack Divozzo, Austyn Foster, Christine Hwang, Brittani Kagan, Valiant Lowitz, Megan Lytle, Alissa Ng, Katie Singer, Eden Stiffman, Nathan Torreano, Sreya Vempatti, Joseph Xu
Letters & Viewpoints The Michigan Review accepts and encourages letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters to the editor should be under 300 words. Viewpoints can be arranged by contacting the editorial board. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Send all correspondence to mrev@umich.edu.
About Us The Michigan Review provides a broad range of in-depth coverage of campus affairs and serves as the literary voice of conservatism and libertarianism at the University of Michigan. The Review is published bi-weekly September thru April.
Donate/Subscribe The Michigan Review accepts no financial support from the University. Therefore, your support is critical and greatly appreciated. Donations above $40 are eligible for a 1-year (12 issues) subscription. Donations can be made on our website at www.michiganreview.com, or mailed to:
911 N. University, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109 The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any university political group. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of The Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual, anonymous contributors to The Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of The Review’s editorial stance. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the advertisers or the University of Michigan. Copyright © 2007, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.
and its podcasts with such figures as Joe Lieberman and John McCain.
A Letter to the Editor DEAR MICHIGAN REVIEW: After reading the article on the UHS by Anna Dickey (10/14/08), I would like to contribute some information and responses. I’m glad to see an article about the UHS. This is obviously an important and highly utilized resource serving a vital role. First, I think the headline is misleading; almost all the information in the article is positive, but the headline leads one to believe that any conclusion is very much up in the air. A question: Who are the “many” that claim that the UHS “tosses out these diagnoses...”? (The “many” who are “greatly appreciative” is more clear, given the percentages of thoose who gave positive responses.) There are very good reasons for testing for pregnancy (and sexually transmitted infections) and mono in college populations. Young people newly away from home experience new behavioral norms and freedoms as well as exposures to new infections. College students generally have higher risks for and higher incidences of behaviorally-related and contagious illness, at least as newcomers. Given the size of the UHS and the volume of visits, I’m not at all surprised that some students have had bad experiences. Health care providers do have different styles, and some “relate” much better than others (and they have bad days like other folks). It is not acceptable to treat patients/students badly under any circumstances. Students: if you didn’t like how you were
treated, tell somebody. I do believe you can have an effect if you provide feedback quickly and clearly. If you don’t feel very clear on the diagnosis and plan before you leave, ask questions. I’d encourage every health care consumer to go to appointments prepared with questions, ask for what they need, and state when they are not satisfied. Finally, regarding the med student who could not access the appropriate care, I think she presents an example of one of the most fragile, ineffective, and problematic areas in health care in general. Obviously it is not OK for anyone - but particularly those who may be especially vulnerable - to experience such difficulties in accessing appropriate care. Unfortunately, this is the case for almost everyone in this country who has a psychological or psychiatric condition requiring treatment. Mental health care is hard to find, get, and pay for: providers are often booked or don’t accept certain payment forms; insurance and public plans rarely provide adequate coverage for psychotherapy and counseling; and of course ongoing stigma obstructs access to accurate and helpful information and services. Given the high incidence of mental illness, all of us - directly or through a friend or family member - will be affected in some way by mental illness at some point in our lives; we had all better push for better access to good care and sufficient care. Thanks for your time. Michelle O’Grady
Corrections The October 14th article was titled “Zatkoff Loses Position, Steals Literature.” A more appropriate title could be “Michigan GOP Infighting Turns Ugly Over Campaign Literature.” The original article indicated that Justin Zatkoff attempted to steal campaign materials. However, the Michigan Republican Party has filed no charges. MRP Spokesman Bill Nowling has been quoted in Michigan Information & Research Service, “Some people didn’t
Letter from the Editor
What you have in your hands is the Michigan Review’s special extended election issue. We hope to engage our readers in the important specific issues facing conservatives in the upcoming election, as well as the broader cultural developments of conservatism. Addressing four of the key themes that affect the changing conceptions of conservative voters, we look into religion, economics, the polling base, and foreign policy past and present. Continuing to analyze this perception among U-M students, Nate Stano‘11 analyzes the development of conservative intellectualism. This issue is not a purely theoretical tract. In some of our news pieces, we discuss the Bradley effect that may be taking place in Obama’s polls (Valiant Lowitz ’12). Another important issue discussed is the media’s treatment of republican and east-of-center politicians by Alex Chiriyath’12. As a traditional voting guide, we provide bullet points for U-M students of the major election points for Obama, McCain, and Bob Barr. Political controversy is unavoidable during elections. We investigate the repercussion of the Acorn voter registration scandal (Valiant Lowitz ’11) as well as the sometimes insupportable claims made by both Obama and McCain (Nathan Torreano’11). Speaking of Bob Barr, we have some fun with
understand that they were no longer employees and had no authority to move those boxes. Once that was clarified the boxes were put back.” The original article reported that Zatkoff was fired by the Republican National Committee’s ‘Victory 08’ program after McCain pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In actuality, Zatkoff’s position was with the Michigan Republican Party. MR
election politics in a satirical spread starting page 12. We counteract the liberal trend in children’s books by playing on the traditional beloved tale of Babar (and you can see where this is going). We also include a mini-glossary of political terms, parodying our famous summer Glossary just in time for election season. A standout element of the issue is our conference call with Barack Obama. Although we may not agree with his policies, it’s difficult to ignore his impressive efforts in reaching out to young voters. Speaking with him during a Press Conference reflects the growing openness of candidates in speaking with college publications. It is always up for discussion in the office what role we play on Michigan’s campus. We all bring diverse viewpoints, but what is generally agreed upon is that the Review serves to bring a contrarian, often conservative articulation to a decidedly liberal university. In this election issue, we hope above all else to engage conservative thought in one of our most important civic duties. So to quote Jane Austen, “From politics, it was an easy step to silence.” I will leave the rest to your judgment. Best, Lindsey Dodge Editor-in-Chief
10.30.2008 4.1.08
PAGE 3
Editorials
COMIC ZACK RAWSTHORNE
The Status Quo Has Got to Go XU / PHOTOS JOSEPH MR STAFF
With the determination of the election fast approaching, it’s a good idea to think about what the future holds. “W” has held power for the last eight years, Bill Clinton for eight years before that, and now it’s time for something extraordinary: conservatism in the government. The concepts of conservatism are changing. The subtle effort of recent Republican candidates to separate themselves from the current Presidential administration shows that the trend of big government neo-conservatism has done little to lower taxes, keep America competitive, and generally do anything that conservative voters want. Let’s face it, it has been twenty years since Ronald Reagan left office and true conservative values have been left on the backburner by Republicans and Democrats alike. Barack Obama may not be our candidate of choice, but he’s got a point: it’s time for change. Conservatism isn’t what you probably think it is. It’s not new spending bills or massive national security departments. Ronald Reagan once said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves”. Conservatives think that you are smart enough to decide what to do with your time and money. Conservatives think that politicians have enough trouble avoiding sex scandals and not accepting gifts from donors, and probably shouldn’t be able to decide where your children go to school. The Michigan Review has always offered a critique towards Republicans, and of course Democrats, who deny the vital importance of conservatism. For example, Mike Huckabee, a former Republican Governor of Arkansas and Presidential hopeful, claims that he is a conservative, yet this is simply not the case. According to the Club for Growth, the Governor consistently sponsored a plethora of tax increases in Arkansas including internet sales taxes, gas and cigarette taxes, and even a sales tax hike to fund the Arkansas Games and Fishing Commission. Tax and spend, tax and spend. The story is similar for Republican Senator Ted Stevens. Legal issues aside, Stevens has consistently slipped earmarks into legislation in order to please his friends and political allies in Alaska. In the 2008 Appropriations Omnibus Act, Stevens allocated $25 million for sewage projects in Alaska Native villages, as well as $4 million for a volcano observatory based in Alaska. Tax and spend, tax and spend. McCain is not a convictional politician. He does not follow a developed political philosophy, and many have found critique with the myth of the maverick. Despite this, let the record show that he has been the most consistent and effective sheriff in the Senate against excessive government spending. The issue of government taxation and waste is this: When you justify spending in one area, you justify spending in another. It may be towards a conservative purpose, such as No Child Left Behind, but if it unnecessarily redirects voters’ dollars into the hands of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, it is not conservative enough for us. We should decide. We should have the power, not the government. Granted, there are some politicians like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina that stand their ground and practice what they preach, like voting against the Senate’s bailout bill and President Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Plan in 2007. Unfortunately, for the most part conservatism is lost in the stranglehold of the political status quo, and it’s our duties as citizens and voters to fish it out. It’s a rebellious concept. Fighting the status quo is rebellious by definition, and people fight back because it’s their policies and their control over spending that they are protecting. Yet those thirteen colonies that invented the idea of conservatism were rebellious too, and it’s our duty to deny attacks on the ideology from both sides of the political spectrum and preserve its values in our government and on our campus. MR
Change in Which We Don’t Believe Unfortunately, the vast majority of dialogue on campus regarding the presidential election has little to do with policy. The truth is that a Barack Obama presidency, veiled in “change” isn’t change at all – it is the same political agenda that the current Democratic Congress has tried to push on the American people. What makes Obama different from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Hope and change, the vapid buzz words that they are, are simply a bright candy coating on the politics as usual that the American people have refused to swallow for the last two years. Truth is many on campus haven’t the slightest idea what an Obama presidency would do to America. An end to the secret ballot for union elections, tax hikes that could cripple the economy, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who value “social and economic justice” over the Constitution, and no end in sight to the gushing tap that is the government’s wasteful spending. Is this the man that we want running our country, and do we want this the government running our lives? The Employee Free Choice Act is a piece of legislation that would require employees to put a signature on a ballot to unionize, making their opinion on the union plain for all to see. You hardly have to look outside Michigan to find evidence of massive union corruption, see Jimmy Hoffa. It is no stretch to imagine the kind of coercion that the unions might apply to make people unionize. The Act has been cosponsored in the Senate by Obama, as well as Harry Reid and other 44 other major Senate Democrats. An Obama administration, with a filibuster proof Senate, would definitely pass this act. That would allow unions to prop up their sagging memberships and likely serve as a jumping off point to regain the political clout, not to mention fundraising capacity, that they once had. Could this lead to a closer marriage of the Democrats and Big Labor? Is it possible we may see something like the British Labour Party, where union leaders have a numerical share of party leadership? Congressional Democrats have been itching to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which forced media outlets to present both sides of a political issue in the interest of “fairness”. This is not only completely unconstitutional, but also a petty attempt to derail conservative talk radio, the only media outlet that has a conservative lean. Silencing political dissent is un-American. Does Obama, who has never stood against his party on any substantive issue, have the courage and the sense to stand up for free speech? His campaign has tried to silence, smear oer cut off people like Joe the plumber or the news stations that have asked Joe Biden tough questions. Not a good track record so far. Finally, it is likely that Obama will initiate the greatest tax hike this nation has ever seen. Obama plans to dramatically raise taxes on the rich, Social Security, capital gains, estates and energy. There’s definitely a pattern here. The last time a president raised taxes and tried protectionist policy to protect American industry, the United States slipped into the Great Depression, and Herbert Hoover became known as the worst president. This is change in which we don’t believe. MR
PAGE 4 P.
10.30.2008 4.1.08
Opinion
The Model Minority
A Time for Choosing
Going Out on a Limb
An End to the Secret Ballot?
BY JANE COASTON ‘09
BY ADAM PASCARELLA ‘10
I’M VOTING FOR Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. There, I said it. It’s a difficult point to admit within the pages of a libertarian, right-leaning newspaper, but I believe that it is one that I hope to have developed intelligently and thoughtfully. I’m not voting for Barack Obama because he and I share a common racial heritage. Though it is intriguing and historically salient, I believe that the era of “firsts” has passed (and thank heavens for that). The last time a black candidate stood a chance of jane reaching the highest office in the land, Jesse Jackcoaston son revealed himself to be, once again, an enormous jerk. This is a little different. I’m also not voting for Barack Obama because I have fallen in love with his constant message of “change”. Let’s face it, its inexcusably amorphous and thus largely meaningless. I changed shoes this morning, but that doesn’t make me a paradigm shifter. It’s political—effective, but political. Liberals who forget that are setting themselves up for a disappointment not seen since Lyndon Johnson broke their hearts in ’67. I’m voting for Barack Obama for two reasons—the policies that he suggests (and the encompassing subtext), and the opposition. The conceptualization that Barack Obama uses of what “government” should be is unlike that of any Democratic frontrunner in recent presidential elections, and because of recent circumstances, that might be the best possible option. The Secretary of the Treasury got down on his knees in front of the Democratic House Majority leader and begged her to help pass a multi-billion dollar bailout package. John McCain advocates buying bad mortgages from homeowners and both candidates advocate stronger oversight of Wall Street firms. These are strange times for advocates of small government, but it’s a little easier to think of an increase in government oversight when private corporations have run amuck with your retirement fund. I believe that the government has responsibilities to the larger populace that it must fulfill in order for the quality of life of everyday Americans to improve, and members of McCain’s campaign, no matter how much his advocates might deny it, would agree. The federal government has the capability to better people’s lives and allow them to act independently and intelligently. That’s my take. At one time, I’ll admit, John McCain was an intriguing candidate for the Presidency. His willingness to challenge the Bush Administration on issues of torture and other matters of deep importance to those who believe in the American ideal is worthy of commendation. But he has fallen so far from those lofty concepts of his 2000 Presidential run that it’s almost difficult to recognize him. Pat Shortridge of the National Review wrote, “In 1980, Ronald Reagan wasn’t campaigning on Billy Carter or the killer rabbit. With the misery index through the roof and the Soviets on the march, he was campaigning on the economy and a strong America. He knew intuitively what Americans were concerned about; he knew what needed to be done and he focused on it incessantly. And he won in a landslide.” So why has McCain sidestepped the major issues of the day and spent an inordinate amount of time concerning himself with largely inconsequential matters? By not focusing on the issues and instead throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, he is losing once unflappable members of his own base. McCain is running the 2004 Kerry Campaign to the letter, and we all know how effective that was. In his much-maligned piece for the Daily Beast, Christopher Buckley wrote: “McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power… Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.” Since those moments in the mid-nineteen-nineties, McCain has fallen from his previous perch as gadfly of the Republican Party. That might be the most depressing fact of this election. Conservatives and Republicans have never been farther from one another in recent political history, and this candidate does nothing to ease the divide. To quote an old friend of mine, “We are going to need an extraordinarily flexible president and McCain has shown himself to be short of the task at hand.” Take from this what you will. Call me a tax-and-spend liberal, or leftist shill. I don’t mind. I just know that what I believe is possible for American government is best served by an Obama presidency. I think it’s time that government did what it was designed to do and governed. And for that, I refuse to apologize. MR
It has been called a piece of legislation that “gives workers back their voice,” by Senator Patty Murray of Washington. Senator Ted Kennedy declared that the bill would “help restore the economic security that has been lost during the Bush years.” It has been sponsored by 234 Congressmen and 47 Senators, and while it has failed to be enacted into law this year, it is likely to be re-considered when the newest Congress assumes its duties in 2009. The fact of the matter remains, however, that this piece of legislation, while pitched as assistance to the “working man,” has a deep, dirty secret. While most citizens are preadam paring to cast their votes in the next Presidential election, pascarella the right to cast a secret vote may simply disappear for some members of our society. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) gives workers anything but free choice while participating in an election to decide if their shop is to become unionized. It’s such an insult to the democratic process that former Presidential candidate George McGovern claimed that “It’s hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote.” This coming from McGovern, no such enemy of organized labor in America, is especially telling. The EFCA would entail that instead of private elections determining if a union is to be created in a certain business, employees would simply have to sign a card stating that they wish to be unionized. If at least 50 percent of employees consent to joining a union during this “card check” process, the union would then be established. Herein lies the problem, though. By having a worker publicly sign a card declaring their desire to establish a union, abuse within the system is undoubtedly going to become commonplace. It is not ludicrous to think that union bosses could intimidate workers into signing the cards by using strong-arm tactics and subtle persuasion. Legislation that was originally designed to benefit the worker turns 180 degrees in the opposite direction. The worker is prone to coercion while the democratic process as a whole is completely shunned. What is truly troubling is that while numerous politicians from the left and right have publicly chastised the EFCA, it is almost certain to have a chance of passage, especially if the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. While the EFCA has not been mentioned frequently on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has praised the Democratic-sponsored legislation, promising to sign the legislation if elected President. Obama has certainly been close with organized labor in America, stating on April 2 to the AFL-CIO that “It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers.” SEIU, one such labor union, has contributed over $7.1 million to the Obama campaign and hundreds of other unions have offered him similar support. Ultimately, if Obama signs the EFCA, the average, hard-working American worker will potentially be open for abuse. It is true that some business owners have intimidated and threatened to fire workers if they wish to organize. In the end, though, the right to a secret election was present. That fundamental right, one that we take for granted in America, will simply disappear if passed in 2009. For a preview of what is to come under the EFCA, consider the case of Allen Smith. An employee of the Good Samaritan Hospital in California, Smith was intimidated by union members for backing a decertification effort for an election, which would remove a union as the exclusive bargaining negotiator for employees. Smith was verbally and physically threatened for his support for decertification, and he was even offered a chance to become a keynote speaker at a Jesse Jackson rally if he complied with the union’s wishes. There will ultimately be more cases like Allen Smith’s if the EFCA is passed next year, especially since “convincing” a worker to join a union is now going to be that much easier. In the end, after looking at all of the facts, the right to a secret vote is truly at stake during this election. Is this truly change that we can believe in? MR
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW is now in your ear.
Check out our award-winning podcasts online with guests and commentary! WWW.MICHIGANREVIEW.COM
10.30.2008 4.1.08 EDUCATION Continued from FRONT PAGE
Conservatives Leap onto Barack Bandwagon BY EDEN STIFFMAN ‘12
“Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon,” said Christopher Buckley on October 10th, in his blog on the news website The Daily Beast where he announced his support of the candidate. Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, one of the intellectual founders of modern conservatism and founder of the political magazine National Review, chose not to publish his support of Obama in his usual back-page column in the magazine. His announcement came as a shock to Republicans, and due to the overwhelming amount of disapproving feedback he received, he resigned from his father’s publication. Buckley mused that Obama has “the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.” He explained that his betrayal of the Republicans in this election is due to his view that “this campaign has changed John McCain…, made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and BANDWAGON Continued on PAGE 14
US Presidents & Their Alma Maters (in order of terms served)
(institutions attended)
George Washington College of William & Mary (withdrew) John Adams Harvard College Thomas Jefferson College of William & Mary James Madison College of New Jersey James Monroe John Quincy Adams
(now Princeton Univeristy)
College of William & Mary University of Leiden (transferred) Harvard College Andrew Jackson NONE Martin Van Buren Kinderhook Academy William Hampden-Syndey College (undergraduate) (withdrew) Harrison University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (M.D.) (withdrew)
John Tyler James Polk
College of William & Mary University of North Carolina (now the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Zachary Tyler Millard Fillmore Franklin Pierce James Buchanan Abraham Lincoln Andrew Johnson Ulysses S. Grant Rutherford B. Hayes
NONE NONE Bowdoin College Dickinson College NONE NONE United States Military Academy Kenyon College (undergraduate) Harvard Law School (Law) James Garfield Hiram College (transferred) Williams College Chester A. Arthur Union College Grover Cleveland NONE Benjamin Harrison Miami University of Ohio William McKinley Alleghany College Albany Law School Theodore Roosevelt Harvard University (undergraduate) Columbia Law School (Law) (withdrew) William Taft Yale University (undergraduate) University of Cincinnati Law School (Law) Woodrow Wilson Davidson College (transferred) Princeton University (undergraduate) University of Virginia Law School (Law) (withdrew) Johns Hopkins University (Ph.D.) Warren Harding Ohio Central College Calvin Coolidge Amherst College Herbert Hoover Stanford Univeristy Franklin Roosevelt Harvard University (undergraduate) Columbia Law School (Law) Harry Truman University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law
Dwight Eisenhower John Kennedy
(Law) (did not receive degree)
United States Military Academy London School of Economics (undergraduate) (transferred)
Princeton University (undergraduate) (transferred) Harvard University (undergraduate) (International Affairs) Stanford Graduate School of Business
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
(M.B.A.) (did not graduate)
Southwest Texas State Teachers College (undergraduate) Georgetown University Law Center (Law) (withdrew)
Whittier College (undergraduate) Duke University School of Law (Law) Gerald Ford University of Michigan (undergraduate) Yale Law School (Law) Jimmy Carter Georgia Southwestern College (transferred) Georgia Institute of Technology (transferred) United States Naval Academy Union College Ronald Reagan Eureka College (Economics) George H. W. Bush Yale University
Bill Clinton
(undergraduate) (Economics)
Georgetown University (undergraduate) (Foreign Service)
University of Oxford Rhodes Scholarship Yale Law School (Law) George W. Bush Yale University (undergraduate) (History) Harvard Business School (M.B.A.)
The Current Candidates & Their Alma Maters John McCain United States Naval Academy (undergraduate) Barack Obama Occidental College (transferred) Bob Barr
Columbia University (undergraduate) (Political Science) Harvard Law School (J.D.) George Washington University (M.A.) (International Affairs)
Georgetown University Law Center (J.D.)
The Media & Presidential Campaigns BY ALEX CHIRIYATH ‘12
The media has played a powerful role in politics. Beginning with print media and continuing with the rise of television, media outlets have used their visibility to inform and persuade voters. Presidential candidates recognize the need for a strong media presence and since the first American elections have used media to win elections. The radio served as a good means of getting the policies of candidates to the general public but the public had to decide whom to vote for based on what they heard. But then campaigns discovered a new media outlet in television. Before the development of commercial television, voters had no way of knowing the candidates as people. Television brought political candidates into the living rooms of America. What a candidate MEDIA Continued on PAGE 14
Net Neutrality Issue Lurks in Shadows BY ALISSA NG ‘10
Swirling among the other “hot-button” issues during this intensely competitive campaigning period is the matter of net neutrality, an important topic of controversy, in recent legislation and presidential candidates’ speeches. But with the economy, energy, abortion, tax, foreign policy and education issues posing to be more worrisome to the average American, net neutrality has faded from the focus of Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain’s hard-hitting speeches. Nevertheless, the two candidates have been clear in their stance on net neutrality, which which is the principle that Internet users should have the freedom to control what content they view. Obama favors the preservation of the Internet and opposes government censorship and telecommunication giants acting as “gatekeepers” to content we receive. Conversely, McCain rejects net neutrality as a “prescriptive regulation”, favoring a safe Internet with government intervention to protect consumers and safeguard children from harmful online content. Obama, too, has advocated “strengthening of privacy protections for the digital age”, but also supports “harnessing the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy”. Net neutrality has been the focus of recent legislation, the 2007 Dorgan-Snowe bipartisan bill and the 2008 Internet Freedom Preservation Act, both of which are currently undergoing review in the Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Dorgan-Snowe bill proposes banning companies from restricting lawful content; and is supported by Senator Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Internet Preservation Act, also known as the Markley-Pickering bill, also advocates net neutrality and the establishment of broadband policy. Various telephone and cable companies such as Verizon and Comcast are some of a few opponents to these proposed bills. These two companies have come under academic and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) scrutiny: Verizon has been guilty of redirecting their customers’ mistyped website addresses to their own search engine page, while Comcast had been found to delay Internet traffic of consumers using peerto-peer networks. Company executives have claimed that this is to ensure smooth Internet flow for consumers’ benefit. To sum up his position on net neutral NET Continued on PAGE 14 & 15
Election & Continuations
graduate or professional schools – a statistic up by 17 percent since 2000. Almost 40 years ago, there were fewer than 9 million students in degree-granting institutions, as revealed by the U.S. Department of Education. The controversial 2004 U.S. Presidential election fueled much reporting about the unimpressive C-average that both Bush and John Kerry received at Yale in the mid 1960s. College education became quite topical as media outlets all over the country publicized the lackluster candidates and their mediocre grades. The widespread fascination with such poor performance displayed the great increase in value that Americans place on academic excellence. A college degree has become a pre-requisite to enter the work force, not just an achievement reserved to wealthy white males. The substantial increase in college enrollment reflects a society that accepts continued education after high school as commonplace rather than optional. With a generation almost required to go to college, the American people would expect nothing less from their president. The 2008 Presidential election has brought the same type of scrutiny upon the candidates. Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University and received his law degree from Harvard, while John McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with an astonishingly low ranking. Educational background makes for two very different candidates. Once again, the American people must decide how much value they place on “the college experience” when it comes to choosing the next president. CollegeBoard contends that “students who attend institutions of higher education obtain a wide range of personal, financial, and other lifelong benefits,” including several direct and indirect benefits for society as a whole. Furthermore, in an article on NPR, Katherina Haley Will asserts that “the real benefits of higher education are difficult to calculate: to learn how to learn and how to flourish as a free human being for a lifetime; to be a good citizen in a democracy.” These intangible benefits of higher education suggest certain unexplainable strengths that a president may possess over one who had never experienced college. Interestingly, John McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 when Dwight D. Eisenhower, who attended the U.S. Military Academy, was president. During the Cold War, the American people looked to a president who had a military background. Perhaps the same idea will guide voters in our time of war to elect John McCain due to his military experience. The reasoning that guides the American public to vote one way or the other involves a complex array of factors. Though the education of many presidents and candidates has been increasingly impressive, recent reports about their performance at these institutions might way more heavily to voters. Perhaps the namebrand schools will enter the minds of Americans with a grain of salt. Perhaps the generational difference in what college meant will be investigated. However, a presidential candidate without those name-brand diplomas might not bode well to the young people trudging through college and their parents trudging through paying for it. For better or worse, college does matter and it will be interesting to see which candidate’s academic chops (or lack thereof) lead to a win. MR
PAGE 5
PAGE 6 P.
10.30.2008 4.1.08
ENERGY
DRUGS
EDUCATION
1. Producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil.
1. Believes Mexico should extradite drug dealers to the US.
1. Emphasizes choice for parents and accountability for schools.
2. Supports death penalty for drug dealers.
2. Wants to drop the policy of group averages from No Child Left Behind but retain the standards for teacher and school accountability. 60% of Title II will go towards bonus incentives, 30% in scholarships and technology advances, and 5% to states in directly recruiting qualified teachers.
2. Cleaning up our air and addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources. 3. Lead the effort to develop advanced transportation technologies and alternative fuels to promote energy independence and cut off the flow of oil wealth to repressive dictatorships like Iran.
3. Increase funding for border security to stop flow of drugs. 4. Restrict methadone treatment programs.
The Candidates
John McCain Republican
Barack Obama Democrat
1. Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump. 2. Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. 3. Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. 4. Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America. 5. Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. 6. Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
1. Expand use of drug courts
1. End subsidies and restrictions to energy production.
1. End the War on Drugs.
2. End subsidies on ethanol.
2. Favors legalization of marijuna for medicinal purposes.
3. Allow for expanded energy exploration. 4. “The free market, driven by consumer choice and reflecting the real cost of resources, should be the foundation of America’s energy policy.”
Bob Barr Libertarian
2. Eliminate sentencing disparities, such as those between crack and powder cocaine. 3. Provide support to exoffenders. 4. Partial decriminalization of marijuana.
1. Intends to reform George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind by increasing education funding to early childhood education and increasing the number of federally-funded charter schools 2. Intends to develop a comprehensive “Zero to Five” program to encourage states to develop voluntary preschool programs. 3. Will work to simplify the college application and federal aid process.
3. Would implement a return of drug policy control to state law enforcement and legislature.
1. Wants to abolish the Department of Education as well as eliminate federal grants and regulations. 2. Wants tax credits for parents who homeschool and he would promote a competitive private sector of schools. 3. Does not believe that No Child Left Behind was effective. 4. Discourages government control of education.
10.30.2008 4.1.08
PAGEP. 7
TRADE
2. Supports ethanol, but by exporting, not by subsidies. 3. Rated 100% by the CATO Institute, a libertarian think-tank, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
1. Plan highlights the importance of victory in Iraq as the only means by which the Iraqi government can gain credence and stability within the region. 2. Microfinance programs to encourage the development of small businesses and pressure on Syria and Iran to discourage their involvement in Iraq are important means by which Iraq can gain independence.
4. Pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters.
3. Phase-out Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). 4. First-year tax deductions for business equipment and investments. 5. Reduce estate tax to 15 percent.
1. Plan focuses on a gradual exit from Iraq, with a residual force intended to conduct “targeted counter-terrorism” missions and to protect American personel.
1. Raise taxes on income earners over $250,000, including capital gains and dividends.
2. 1 to 2 brigades would leave per month over an estimated period of a year and a half.
3. $50 billion in new infrastructure spending.
3. Intends to press Iraqi politicians to work towards developing a more effective and independent political structure.
2. Up to $1,000 tax credit for “working families.”
4. Has promised $293 billion in new spending, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
1. Savings in Medicare without compromising on benefits. 2. Expand benefits of Health Savings Accounts. 3. Promote flexibility for states and encourage them to lower costs. 4. Make insurance more portable. 5. Believes families should have more control. 6. Reform Tax Code to offer more choices. 7. Develop a Guaranteed Access Plan for states.
1. Coverage of pre-existing conditions by insurance companies. 2. Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a public plan and various private options. 3. Lower costs for businesses in exchange for lower premiums on employees. 4. Create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide health care.
4. Permanent US bases in the region would not be encouraged.
5. Oppose Central American Free Trade Agreement.
1. Plan focuses on immediate withdrawl from Iraq.
2. Claims that free trade, not military intervention, will preserve peace.
2. A timetable would not be released for fear that it might provide too much information to insurgent forces in the region, but the exit would be planned and executed quickly.
3. Reduce trade barriers in order to allow America to become more competitive in the global market.
3. The War in Iraq has emasculated the Iraqi government and encouraged America’s enemies in the Middle East.
1. Flat tax or national sales tax. 2. Cut or eliminate corporate and capital gains taxes. 3. “Every area of federal spending can and should be cut.” 4. Has promised to reduce spending by over $200 billion in spending, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
1. Regulations which mandate insurance coverage and increase premiums should be eliminated. 2. Federal healthcare programs should be fundamentally reenvisioned. Market principles should be applied to bring better quality health care at less cost. 3. Controls which unduly restrict competition within the health care industry, and that limit access to insurance across state lines, should be ended.
Vice President Wayne Allyn Root
1. Wishes to withdraw from the WTO.
The Candidates
3. Provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America..
2. Cut corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.
HEALTH CARE
Vice President Joe Biden
2. End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.
1. Extend all Bush tax cuts.
6. Has promised over $92 billion in new spending, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
4. Consistently supported NAFTA and has not favored to renegotiate the agreement.
1. Use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.
ECONOMY
Vice President Sarah Palin
1. The U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules.
IRAQ
PAGE 8 P.
hanging C
10.30.2008 4.1.08
Conservatism
The Michigan Review takes a look at conservative thought: the past, the present and the foreseeable future.
Changing Conservatism
on Foreign Policy
on Polling Base
BY ANNA DICKEY ‘12
BY ALISSA NG ‘10
America’s involvement in the Second World War gave the US a new take on the topic of foreign relations. The world wars bestowed upon America a new dimension of interventionism, along with more personal experience with foreign relations than the nation had ever before encountered; conservatives took a stance that has remained relatively consistent through the duration of the twentieth century. But now, with dauntingly complex international issues at hand, the lines of conservative versus liberal stances on America’s relationship within other nations may be blurring. The questions of when, how, where, and why to intervene in other countries within the traditional conservative stance was said to be primarily dependent on if the other country was threatening the liberties of US citizens. This was clearly iterated in a document titled “The Sharon Statement,” developed in 1960 within a conservative movement of American youth, which established and defined the principals of the movement. The final sentence of the Sharon Statements proclaimed, “…American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?” With this, conservative mindset on foreign relations was henceforth set, and remained the core belief through the rest of the major US events in the twentieth century, namely the Cold War and Vietnam, among others. What exactly has changed since “The Sharon Statement” isn’t necessarily the conservative or liberal philosophies, but there has indeed been an increase of paradoxes, contradictions, and overlapping within each stance in regards to the different international situations at hand. Each situation is not necessarily a black or white argument between interventionism versus isolationism; there are arguments of what constitutes American benefit, and how helping other countries can help or hinder both America and the rest of the world. According to University of Michigan history professor Dr. J. Mills Thornton, the changes that have been occurring may be due in part to the Bush administration. “I think that Bush’s intervention [in Iraq] has damaged the cause of an America that sees itself as having an obligation to actively liberate all of mankind,” he stated. “However, there is a strong sense that we have an obligation that we have to intervene in Darfur and Sudan…” Indeed, the Bush administration, which has been markedly controversial in foreign relations, has earned much scorn beyond the liberals—many conservatives are angered with his actions in the Middle East. His “regime change” plans for the Iraq have allegedly become too interventionist and burdensome for the United States to handle. The truth may be that within the coming years conservative isolationism and liberal interventionism will become too archaic and simplistic to apply to current United States foreign policy. The changes that are occurring may lead citizens to take on newer stances that don’t completely abandon the old views; while still maintaining similarities to conservatism and liberalism, there may be increased sophisticated philosophies. America’s involvement within the rest of the world is now irreversible and arguably imperative, and conservatives fully acknowledge that isolationism is no longer possible when it comes to foreign policy--yet their changes cannot be said to have transformed into a more liberal group. “I don’t think that there’s a philosophical issue, more situational [within foreign policy and conservatism],” stated Thornton. “The non-interventionists are identified with Henry Kissinger, but on the left there are many people who were opposed to intervention in Vietnam and Iraq. I don’t see a liberal vs. conservative line at a philosophical level…” Philosophically, then, conservatives within the realm of foreign relations will continue to take the traditional stance that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our nation. However, the complexities of what constitutes a threat to our nation, and the safety of the future, are undeniably tethered to our relationships with the other countries that occupy the globe. And conservatives are thinking actively to accommodate our country’s growing role in the world, and theirs in ours. MR
As the nation waits for the votes to be tallied and the winner to be announced, many Americans and political commentators have already predicted the result. Nationally, presidential candidate Barack Obama leads in the Gallup polls in terms of aggregate candidate support, with 52 % of the vote compared to John McCain’s 42% in the week ending October 19. No one can say for sure who Americans will vote for come election day; the history of voting patterns in the United States is a testament to this fact. Bill Nowling, Communications Director of the Michigan Republican Party, says that there is “no way to gauge, but in Michigan, [voting patterns] haven’t changed that much.”
“There’s definitely a trend in urban areas towards Democratic support, but there is a high rural support for the GOP.” Voting results are greatly dependent on geography. “There’s definitely a trend in urban areas towards Democrat support, but there is high rural support for the GOP,” Nowling says. Gallup polls echo this, indicating that the South and West regions have traditionally supported the GOP since 1980 with high support from rural and suburban areas. Central cities are mostly Democratic. Political commentator and Fellow of the Brookings Institution Ruy Teixeira has observed that “white working class voters on average favor the GOP”. Michigan has a large white working class population, but like in other states such as Minnesota and Pennsylvania, this is slowly changing as minorities and educated individuals increase. He has also noted an increase in Democratic votes among college graduates and fall in rural bases, but he also suggests that Democrats may distance ethnic majorities if they focus on obtaining the white middle and working class vote. Nowling says, “Again, it’s hard to gauge who college graduates will vote for. It’s been [trending towards] Democrats, especially this year, but over the years—and I’m talking about several decades back here—it breaks even.” Gallup Blogs predict that voting bases for both parties will be roughly similar to the 2000 and 2004 elections; with the Democratic Party base made up of Hispanics, the youth, low-income earners, as well as those less religious. 91% of African-Americans have indicated their preference for Obama in the October 19 weekend. The GOP, on the other side of the political spectrum, traditionally has a non-ethnic demographic base 65 and older, those who are married with children living at home, military personnel, and religious Christians. In fact, conservative Christian vote identification with the GOP increased from 64% in the 1970s to 90% in the 21st century, according to the American National Election Studies. As for race, the GOP has retained its predominantly white electorate while the Democratic Party has been more ethnically diverse and has maintained the Jewish and Muslim votes (more so since the Iraq War). In Michigan, everyone is wondering how McCain’s withdrawal will affect the vote on November 4th. Nowling says that it is uncertain until the votes are actually cast. “It’s a tough election year for Republicans, especially in Michigan, and looking back at the past two presidential cycles at the high amount of activity and intensity put into the campaigns, and comparing it to this year’s, I would say that it has decreased [due to his withdrawal]. The Michigan Democratic Party has to scramble to fill in the resource [vacuum] created by his withdrawal.” But Nowling maintains a positive outlook. “McCain took with him resources that can now be used for other programs. He can now focus on the ‘ground game’ [in swinging states].” McCain’s withdrawal certainly has had an effect in Michigan, but it isn’t the only thing playing on voters’ minds. How the presidential candidates will deal with pertinent issues such as the economy, foreign policy and energy are crucial in deciding whom to vote for, especially for undecided or swinging voters. More locally, Nowling sees the economy as being ‘the issue’ for both Republicans and Democrats in Michigan for the last five and a half years. “There’s really not much else on everyone’s minds, not even education or the environment”, he remarks. MR
10.30.2008
on Religion
BY JANE COASTON ‘09
“Younger Americans, including younger Americans of faith, are not the culture war generation.” The polling data reflects a change in the issues held as vital to many Christian conservatives. Though gay marriage initiatives and the clash regarding abortion are still extremely controversial, the recent economic downturn and concerns regarding the environment are gaining importance in the minds of young voters. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University said, “People are more concerned about peace and prosperity than they are about samesex marriage and abortion. We just don’t see that same energy today [against same-sex marriage] that we saw in 2004.” The nomination of John McCain has presented new problems to conservative Christian voters. In the past, McCain supported federal stem-cell research initiatives and opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Dr. Dobson, who now is a McCain supporter, denounced McCain on February 5th: “I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party...”Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down,” Dobson said. “I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.” MR
The 12 Tribes of American Politics According to a Study on beliefnet.com
% of Voting Age Population
% of 2004 Voters
1. THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
12.6%
15%
2. HEARTLAND CULTURE WARRIORS
11.4%
14%
3. MODERATE EVANGELICALS
10.8%
9.0%
4. WHITE BREAD PROTESTANTS
8.0%
7.0%
5. CONVERTIBLE CATHOLICS
8.1%
7.0%
6. THE RELIGIOUS LEFT
12.6%
14%
7. SPIRITUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS
5.3%
3.0%
8. SECULARS
10.7%
11.0%
9. LATINOS
7.3%
5.0%
10. JEWS
1.9%
3.0%
2.7%
3.0%
9.6%
8.0%
11. MUSLIMS & OTHER FAITHS
12. BLACK PROTESTANTS
BY JONATHAN SLEMROD ‘10
Fiscal conservatives have always been an integral part of the coalition that has brought the Republican Party years of electoral success, from the Ronald Reagan until George W. Bush. Their message has been quite simple. Less government intervention in the economy – low taxes, less spending, deregulation, and free trade – will lead to prosperity. For years, the GOP successfully branded themselves the party of fiscal restraint, driving an important wedge between themselves what they call “tax-and-spend” Democrats. The 1994 Contract with America called for spending reforms such as a balanced budget requirement and a line-item veto aimed at giving the President additional power to target wasteful spending. On taxes, the Contract required that Congress have a three-fifths majority for any tax increases. While none of these reforms were ultimately adopted by Congress, Republicans solidified the notion that they were the party of fiscal conservatism, and made sure that President George W. Bush felt the same way. He did, and with help of a Republican-led Congress, cut taxes not once, but twice, in 2001 and 2003, respectively.
If polls are any indication, Election Day will not be a pleasant one for the GOP, as Democrats are likely to increase their majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention the White House. Enter 2008, and the Republican Party is arguably in shambles. If polls are any indication, Election Day will not be a pleasant one for the GOP, as Democrats are likely to increase their majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention the White House. And although Republicans have tried hard to extol John McCain’s fiscal conservative credentials, evidence shows that voters overwhelmingly point the blame at Republican policies. A CNN poll from late September found that fortyseven percent of registered voters attribute Republicans to the financial crisis, while only twenty-four percent blame Democrats. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blamed the “reckless economic policies” of President Bush and Congressional Republicans in a speech shortly before the floor vote on the financial bailout. “They claim to be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: no regulation, no supervision, no discipline,” Pelosi stated. “And if you fail you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.” Conservatives differ on how the Republican Party should refocus on economic issues. Prominent conservative writers Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam from the Atlantic Monthly, argue that the GOP should refocus their efforts on the working class. Their book, Grand New Party, proposes social reforms such as wage subsidies, tax credits for marriage and education, and “to fix the welfare state, rather than abolish it; to reform the Great Society, but leave the New Deal more or less intact,” words that would make limited-government types within the conservative movement cringe. Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a prominent free-market think tank in Washington, DC, is one of those types. He criticizes a Republican Party largely complicit with Bush Administration policies such as massive spending increases and the 2003 prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. He points to members of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) as the exception to that rule. The RSC has bucked with the Bush Administration on politically dangerous issues such as budget cuts to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief, opposing an increase in government-funded health care for children, and the recent Wall Street bailout. “I hope they look at some of their new, young leaders in Congress, such as Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mike Pence (R-IN), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),” said Edwards. The GOP will hold elections of their own two weeks after November 4, to determine their own leaders within Congress. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) could be replaced, and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) could retire, leaving members of the RSC well-positioned to take at least some of the party’s reigns. But placing conservatives at the top may only do so much without a fundamental change in attitude. What direction that change will go remains to be seen. “It’s very sad, but I think that most people in Congress are there because they are career climbers who want to handle the levers of power in Washington. They’re not there for ideological reasons, or because they believe in limited government,” said Edwards. MR
Changing Conservatism
The phenomenon of Christian conservatives as a powerful voting bloc for Republican candidates dates back to the foundation of the Moral Majority in the mid-1980s. Ronald Reagan recognized their power in 1984, and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 marked a high-water point for their political ascendancy. But the role of Christians in the 2008 election is more amorphous. John McCain has utilized many of the same Christian conservative resources as George W. Bush, including receiving an endorsement from the Christian organization Focus on the Family and its influential founder, child psychologist Dr James Dobson. His selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate was another important move to gain credence among Christian conservatives, as her affiliations with charismatic churches and opposition to gay marriage, abortion, and other key issues are well-known to voters. But recent polling data shows that for younger Christians, the traditional controversies of the past may hold less weight in the 2008 election. The non-partisan organization Faith in Public released a survey on October 8th indicating that 60 percent of voters who attended religious services on a monthly basis supported the Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama. Robert Jones, president of Public Religion Research and lead analyst of the poll, said, “We took a look at one of the historically strongest predictors of voters, and that’s religious attendance.” The organization conducted another poll that indicated that 71% of young first time voters with religious affiliations are voting for Senator Obama and 52% of young, white evangelical Christians supported gay marriage or civil unions, traditionally anathema to Christian conservatives. Mr Jones: “Younger Americans, including younger Americans of faith, are not the culture war generation. On issues from gay and lesbian rights to the role of government at home and around the world, young Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals are bridging the divides that entrenched their elders and ushering in an era of consensus in which the common good trumps the clash of ideologies.”
on Economics
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
10.30.2008
Election
3rd Party Candidates on the Michigan Ballot BY EDEN STIFFMAN ‘12
FOR THOSE WHO are still undecided and feeling the pressure to vote for the lesser of two evils, here is a quick rundown of the four third party presidential and vice presidential candidates that appear on the Michigan ballot.
Constitution Party Charles O. “Chuck” Baldwin & Darrell L. Castle Baldwin is a Baptist Pastor from Florida and wants to “restore the government to its biblical foundations.” His campaign opposes U.S. income taxes, the United Nations, and the PATRIOT Act; he would withdraw troops from Iraq and end illegal immigration. He strongly supports the right to keep and bear arms, homeschooling, and pro-life legislation. His running mate, Castle, is an attorney from Tennessee. The Constitution Party is on the ballot in 37 states
Libertarian Party Robert L. “Bob” Barr & Wayne Allyn Root The former Georgia Congressman’s campaign opposes the War in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and gun control but advocates for a smaller government, border security, domestic drilling, fiscal constraint, and a return to the gold standard. Root is a businessman, television producer, and professional sports handicapper, from Las Vegas, Nevada. Barr is on the ballot in 45 states. Green Party Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente The Former Georgia Congresswoman’s campaign advocates for widespread federal aid for low-income families and communities, a massive public works project, and the “greening of our economy.” They want to nationalize the Federal Reserve and have it designated as a Section or Department within the United States Treasury under the direction and supervision of the Secretary. They oppose the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs. Clemente is a “community organizer, journalist and Hip-Hop activist” from New York, according to the campaign’s website. The Green Party is on 31 state ballots. Independent Party Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez The campaign’s platform is based on fighting against corporate greed. Proposed initiatives include adopting a single payer national health insurance plan, instituting a carbon pollution tax, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and strong federal support of affirmative action. Gonzalez is a lawyer and political activist in San Francisco. This is Nader’s fourth official time running for President. Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. According to Real Clear Politics polls, Nader has an average of 2.5 percent of the vote in recent national polls while Barr averages 1.3 percent. The odds are clearly against third parties. So what reasons are do people give for voting that way? Third parties with very narrow platforms can draw attention to issues that are ignored by the majority parties. When a third party gains a significant number of voters, the major parties may become aware and incorporate the party’s issue into their own platforms. Third parties can also help to increase voter turnout and registration. But, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking as of October 18th, only about 1% of registered voters said they would vote for a specific third party candidate while 6% remain undecided. Votes for 3rd party candidates may be cast as a protest, to pull votes away from a major candidate. Despite projections that voter turnout in this election will have increased from the 64% who voted in 2004, the millions who do not vote, have the potential to do much more harm to major party candidates than will a protest vote for a third party candidate. MR
Conservatism & Intellectualism From Jefferson to Joe Six Pack BY NATHAN STANO ‘11
One does not have to look far or listen hard to hear people discussing the future of conservatism in this election. The last eight years have produced visceral reactions on both sides of the political spectrum, and it appears that conservatism is going to have to rebrand itself to garner the support that it had gained in the last decade. Portrayed as stagnant and out of ideas, conservatism is supposed to be in flux. This poses the question, what are the intellectual roots of conservatism, and where do we go now? “The political term conservative is pretty much useless,” said Jack McHugh, Senior Legislative Analyst for the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy. His point is a stark one. “You have different meanings of conservatism…Republican is a coalition of many different interests.” Since the Republican Party is a coalition of interests, who are the conservatives, or alternatively, is conservative itself a term to be disused, as “progressive” is on the left? Certainly, most scholars would agree that modern conservatism, often referred to as “classical liberalism”, begins in the Scottish Enlightenment. Men such as Adam Smith as well as John Locke and Edmund Burke had a great deal of influence not only on the Founding Fathers, but the Constitution that they produced. They advocated for limited governments, free markets, and a belief in the natural rights of man that have been enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet, despite the popularity of small government, it hardly makes it into the halls of power at any level. “Lots of Republicans, and even some Democrats, use the term conservative, it’s politically useful, but often has little to do with people’s ideas about government,” McHugh put it, “[you] can’t take it at face value.” If one is to look into the philosophy of classical liberalism, one would find that even the last three years are not an example of it. Thomas Paine famously proclaimed, “that government is best which governs least,” and that is not the picture we have seem from a “conservative” in the last eight years. The creation
of the Department of Homeland Security has seen the largest consolidation of government power in a generation, the government can spy on US citizens with limited judicial intervention under FISA and the PATRIOT Act, and the government has taken upon itself the role of “saving” the economy. All of these actions fly in the faces of the men on whose shoulders we stand and their ideas of civil liberties and economic freedom. The message to take away here is clear. If we are to examine intellectual or philosophical conservatism, and conservatism as it is applied in the political arena today, we find two distinct ideologies: one that has been born and nurtured by men whose interests have been the freedom of mankind, the other the product of practical men seeking reelection. “Few individuals have attained success by opposing the political establishment,” McHugh stated, and with reelection rates for congressmen in the ninetieth percentile, it is not impossible to imagine the idea of a political class. The laws of campaign finance clearly favor incumbents, thus it is not to the advantage of men who wish to retain power to reduce the size of government and put limits on their own power. Thus, perhaps the politicians have crafted a new conservatism, plastered over the old, and sold it to the average American as folksy populism or “compassionate conservatism”. When asked what conservatives ought to do about their problem of nomenclature, McHugh stated, “don’t accept conservative as an adequate label…depending on what you believe, you may need to find a new term.” In a search of what’s out there, it may seem daunting to leave such a broad definition for a much narrower one. A little research, as well as a little reading, can be a boon to anyone looking to find out what they really believe. That being said, if people are to break off from the conservative label, there is no reason why a conservative coalition must be broken. If conservatism is to survive as an ideology is perhaps to hearken back to the “big tent” ideal of the past, uniting the people against the government in the defense of freedom. MR
The Bradley Effect BY VALIANT LOWITZ ‘12
Barack Obama was supposed to win the New Hampshire primary. Coming out of a victory in Iowa, polls showed him with a thirteen-point lead over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, however, did not win the New Hampshire primary. Was this simply an instance of flawed polling? Or was it yet another instance of the Bradley Effect? The Bradley Effect refers to the phenomenon first identified in the 1982 race for the Governor’s chair of California. Tom Bradley, the very popular African American mayor of Los Angeles, was the frontrunner in a race against white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Mayor Bradley lost the election by over 50,000 votes. The results of this race caught many analysts off-guard. Polls showed Mayor Bradley with a strong lead over the Republican rival in what was a good year for the Democratic Party as a whole. Tom Bradley was a popular politician within the state and was apparently free of scandal. What then, was the cause of his unexpected loss? The conclusion was drawn that many white voters were reluctant to declare lack of support for the African-American Bradley for fear of being pegged as prejudiced or racist by their peers. When asked by pollsters who they were supporting then, many of these voters may have claimed to be undecided or leaning towards Bradley, when in fact they were leaning towards the white Deukmejian. This reluctance on the part of voters was dubbed the Bradley Effect. It eventually became a proposed explanation for any discrepancy between voter opinion polls and actual outcomes, in elections that involve both a white and non-white candidate. Stemming from the psychological social desirability bias, it became apparent that many voters
might give preferences that are inaccurate in order to be perceived as upstanding members of society. White voters especially then, may be reluctant to display true preferences to pollsters out of a fear that if they do they will be shunned by other members of their neighborhood. However, this phenomenon occurred only at the state level. It is still unclear as to whether or not any sort of Bradley effect will occur on a national level, when much more is at stake. “People’s concerns about the economy have washed out any effect,” claims Dr. Michael W. Traugott, a Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Michigan. “People’s preference for President is driven by the economy.” Senator Obama did win the Iowa Caucuses a week before New Hampshire. However a caucus is conducted in public, with a voter’s preferences on display for all other voters to see. The voting in the New Hampshire primary was conducted behind the privacy of a curtain. This could be attributed to the grass-roots organizational efforts of the Obama campaign, which, according to Dr. Tragott, would give Obama the “advantage in a caucus.” However, publicly white voters were supporting Barack Obama and polls in New Hampshire showed him poised for repeat. It is in private that a voter is free from the eyes of watchful neighbors, and thus is free to show their true preferences and beliefs; preferences and beliefs that for one reason or another caused them not to support Senator Obama. This is not to say though, that all voters who claim to be supporting Obama are lying. Dr. Vincent Hutchings, an associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, is quick to point out that, “the so-called ‘Bradley effect’ did not turn up in every presidential primary.” At many points BRADLEY Continued on PAGE 15
PAGE 11
Obam ania
10.30.2008
HE HAS NOT only inspired an enormous volunteer base for his campaign, but he has also propelled himself from a long-shot at winning the Democratic nomination to a favorite to win the election. While other presidential candidates in the past have shared similar popularity, Barack Obama has something different going for him: the support of America’s youth. Whether “youth” is defined as young children or teenagers under the legal voting age, Barack Obama seems to have it covered. One of the key factors in this expansion of influence is the entertainment world. Many of the most popular celebrities in Hollywood have made it very clear that they are voting for Barack Obama. Some, such as Sean Astin, from “The Lord of the Rings” and Adam Brody, of the television series The OC, have even set time aside to register voters on college campuses, including UM. In a country where the youth is heavily influenced by pop culture, these celebrity gestures are an extremely large factor in increasing Obama’s “cool” factor. Adrian Madriz, an LSA junior heavily involved in the Obama campaign says however that Obama has not inspired the youth as much as he has “taken advantage of their general animosity towards the government and turned it into a positive force for action.” This trend is evident in a mock campaign run by UR Votes Count, which allowed teenagers to vote for their presidential candidate in malls across America. The results came out overwhelmingly in favor of Barack Obama (sixty-two percent to McCain’s thirty-three percent). Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Ralph Nader (running as an independent candidate) also received a respectable three percent each. “It also helps that Obama represents the kind of success most students would like to emulate, where they graduate from college and rely mostly on what
Election
BY ZACK DIVOZZO ‘11
IMAGE KIDS.BARACKOBAMA.COM
they learned from academia to make a positive impact on the world,” Madriz said. “This year, the youth really is going to make the difference, along with all the other demographics that have been apathetic in the past. Obama is basing his entire campaign on the premise that there are enough young people to get him to victory.” Obama’s campaign has also made an effort to reach out into the area of children’s support, which is evident by the “Kids” section of his official website. The page offers pre-made invitations to Barack Obama-themed parties, as well as other ideas to get children excited about the candidate. A video on the web page features a group of children drawing pictures of Barack Obama and explaining why they would like him to be their president. “I like Barack Obama because...once he becomes president he is going to promote the efficiency of solar panels. Yay for energy!” one of the children said to the camera. “I like Barack Obama because he’s just cool,” another enthusiastic student said. MR
Live from DC, It’s Political Satire! BY KATIE SINGER ‘12
With the country in the midst of a monumental presidential election, the ever-popular Saturday Night Live (SNL) political skits continue to be as memorable as ever. The recent stream of episodes that have caricatured Sarah Palin, for instance, have garnered some of the show’s highest ratings in the last 14 years. Yet many would argue that their depiction serves to undermine her potential as a political candidate, rather than just going for laughs. It seems as though the last few episodes – one drawing attention to sexism in the campaign starring Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton, and another mocking Palin’s interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric – have only portrayed the vicepresidential candidate as a pretty face that is not suited for the White House. Statements like “Anyone can be president,” “I can see Russia from my house,” and “I don’t know what [the Bush Doctrine] is,” only diminish her credentials. They also mock her for her lack of experience, especially regarding foreign policy, and the McCain campaigns frequent use of the word “maverick.” However, they don’t seem to pay much attention to Barack Obama’s lack of experience or his overuse of the word “change.” Other noteworthy SNL political spoofs include Dana Carvey as George H.W. Bush, Phil Hartman as Bill Clinton, and Dan Akroyd as Richard Nixon. Both George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, seem to be impersonated as either unintelligent and war-loving, or, in the case of W, drunk in the Oval Office. On the other hand, Bill Clinton is shown “mingling with the American people” in a McDonald’s, and it is clear how much (in the depiction by the SNL writers) he is adored by the people. Rather than mocking his political views or choices like they had done to the Bush family, they joked about his weight, or his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. American viewers love these presidential skits for various reasons, amnog them because they are funny, true, or so unbelievable that they capture our attention. During an NBC Today Show special, the “Best ‘SNL’ Political Skits,” that aired on October 3, 2008, Ann Curry casually suggested that these skits were simply a way for the public “to blow off some steam.”
Her co-anchor, Meredith Vieira, nonetheless, pointed out that “when [she is] watching Sarah Palin now, it’s almost as if [she sees] Tina Fey and it almost affects how [she watches and sees] these candidates sometimes.” If this is the case, as Meredith suggests, then these favored Saturday Night Live spoofs may be intentionally portraying the Republican politicians in a harsher way than they do the Democrats. But, then again, they didn’t seem to be big fans of Senator Hillary Clinton during her run for the presidency. Not all of the skits that poked fun of politicians caught on though. For instance, the show which caracatured Ronald Reagan as simply an actor and not a politician is unpopular in the public eye. In fact, none of the Reagan skits caught on like those of other candidates. Perhaps this is because he had a high approval rating that only increased after he left office, or because it is hard to poke fun at someone who pokes fun at themself. The results of the upcoming election are, as yet, unknown, but we can be sure that as the Clinton and Bush dynasty comes to a close, the writers of SNL will continue to take advantage of the laughable characteristics of politicians. MR
BY MEGAN LYTLE ‘10
Oliver Stone’s “W” is the supposedly empathetic portrayal of President George W. Bush’s life. The film moves back and forth between scenes of his drunken college years and his several short-lived careers as an adult, culminating in his political career, all within the framework of Bush’s desperate competition with his brother Jeb for parental approval. In an awkward combination of mocking of and sympathizing with Bush, the portrait of “W” – a helpless, clumsy, sad idiot caught up in family drama and being manipulated by much more sinister, intelligent people - was at least as simplistic and disrespectful as it was sympathetic. One scene shows a young “W” in his father’s office, making excuses for his wayward adult career and denying fathering an illegitimate baby by his girlfriend, insisting that he used a condom. George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush are shown condescending to and disapproving of their son well into his political career, going as far as to tell him not to run for governor because he cannot possibly win. W’s decision to run for the Presidency is posited as revenge against both Saddam Hussein and the Democrats who beat his father’s chance for a second term; as he told people of his plan, he often mentioned that he felt that God was telling him to run. As to the factual reality of Bush’s family drama, Jeb Bush has this much to say, according to The Washington Times: “The Oedipal rivalry is high-grade, unadulterated hooey.” Stone’s portrayal of Bush is confused, spoiled, and unintelligent even into the years of his presidency, playing up the uncivilized-Southerner stereotypes typical of Bush mockery. A bewildered, bemused W is repeatedly shown caving to the whims of his cruel, manipulative Cabinet, hardly seeming to know what is going on, often munching on a sandwich with his mouth open. Karl Rove skulks in the shadows of Cabinet meetings, grinning as Dick Cheney coldly presents wars with Iraq and Iran as a way to dominate the world’s oil supply through “empire.” One aspect of the film that raised eyebrows is the choice to exclude 9-11 from the narrative, instead choosing to focus on the wars started during his first term. This tragedy is essential to understanding Bush’s presidency; it’s glossed over. There was also no mention of his second term or his run for re-election against Kerry. One of the last scenes in the movie is a press conference in which he stutters, unable to think of anything he could have possibly done differently during his first term. This choice, along with the soundtrack (playing carnival music as W blunders his way through an interview, or playing “The Yellow Rose of Texas” as bombs blow up over Baghdad), pulls the tone further away from an empathetic portrait and closer to a blatantly biased hatchet job. MR
IMAGE NEWSDAY.COM
PAGE 12 P.
10.30.2008 4.1.08
For all those Right-Wingers with young children out there, there is an overwhelming problem come story-time. Increasingly, children’s books reflect a liberal agenda, shown in books such as “Why Daddy is a Democrat,” “Maybe Yes, Maybe No,” and “Sally Has Two Mommies.” To counteract this cultural insurgence, we wrote our own children’s book that will address the values of conservative parents (plot points courtesy of Jean de Brunhoff’s “The Story of Babar”)...
BOB-BARR The Adventures of The Very Different Elephant WRITTEN BY LINDSEY DODGE ‘10 ILLUSTRATED BY EUN LEE ‘10
ONCE UPON A TIME a young elephant named Bob-Barr. He lived deep in the jungle, a dangerous place full of wild animals fighting for power. He was dissatisfied with the tyranny of the jungle bureaucracy, and he went on a long, long, long journey to the West. After the death of the Elephant-King from an overdose of poisonous mushrooms, Bob-Barr returned to his
Election Humour
chaotic home intent on civilizing the jungle. Completely independent of any government body, he argued that the elephants should not restrict people, but let them be themselves. This angered the rhinoceri, who lived in constant battle with the elephants. Their leader, LORD RAZ-TAXES, believed that elephants should not think for themselves, but let jungle law think for them. Bob-Barr knew better. Look at his special elephant glasses. He used his icy blue laser-gaze to annihilate LORD RAZ-TAXES and his horny crowd of rhinoceri. The elephants cheered, happy to be free.
Bob-Barr had saved the day! The end. MR
The Glossary ELECTION EDITION
This year in our exclusive election issue, The Michigan Review publishes this compilation of various institutions and terms from politics that sum up everything a politically savvy student should possibly need to know. “Anti-America” Towns: Probably where you live. If you’re reading this, then definitely where you live. Chicago: Major U.S. city. Coincidentally where we’d like to be buried, for then we will continue to vote. Electoral College: The body that elects the president, because the Founding Fathers didn’t think most people would pay attention to politics. Turns out...they were right. Fascist: A person who supports totalitarianism. Nowadays? Any existing person with whom you disagree. Like Barbara Streisand. Filibuster: Delaying tactic associated with the Senate and used by the Minority in an effort to prevent the passage of a bill or amendment. Strom Thurmond once filibustered for 24 hours straight in 1957. I once talked for twenty-four hours straight when I was six. Both instances were not well received. George W. Bush: Who? What? What president? Our president? Eight years? Really? Maverick: An unbranded range animal, particularly a motherless calf. Or Madonna’s record label. Or John McCain and Sarah Palin. It applies to a lot of things for a term for individuality. Mugwump: Supporters of Grover Cleveland’s 1884 Presidential campaign. Not a fictional character from Winnie the Pooh, the theory posited by certain members of Editorial Board. Likely Voter: Your grandma. And not the friendly one. The one that forgot butter in the cookies. Lobbyist: Someone who loiters and lobbies. Just kidding. jk jk lolz Politician: Second oldest profession, though not that unrelated to the oldest. Socialist: Jane D. Coaston, LSA Senior. Supreme Court: The nine crotchetiest old people in America divided on party lines. Basically like breaking into a nursing home and distributing gavels, gowns, some clerks, and no definitive retirement date. MR
10.30.2008 4.1.08
What to Do Before the Election BY JANE COASTON ‘09
1. Step. Away. From. The Blog. Seriously. Whatever just happened probably wasn’t that important, and it doesn’t require you to check Politico.com every ten seconds. Just go on a walk. Without your iPhone. 2. Don’t Read Polls: A quick poll of the office shows that 75% of Americans are wearing coats and 50% of Americans drank Mojitos in the desert last weekend. Seriously, check the numbers. No one knows who conducts polls, and lord only knows who responds. Probably my mother. And she thinks about cats a lot.
ACORN Continued from FRONT PAGE
been popping up in both Michigan and across the country, tying back to an organization known as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, or ACORN. ACORN is a nation-wide activist group, which uses paid, part-time employees to register lowincome voters for the November 4th election and in recent months has claimed to register over 200,000 voters in Michigan alone, and 1.3 million nation-wide. Among these 200,000 voters, though, lie duplicate applications, or voter’s names that were simply made-up. Las Vegas authorities seized records from an ACORN office which would register the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. Other instances of voter fraud include a seven-year-old girl in Hartford, Connecticut being registered as a twenty-seven year old and Mickey Mouse registered in Missouri. Many of the allegations have come from key swing States such as Ohio, Missouri and Florida .Senator John Mccain, during the final presidential debate, remarked that ACORN was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Obama campaign retorted by claiming “Republican Party officials and operatives nationwide are fomenting specious votVOTING Continued from FRONT PAGE
Frye. The number of West Coasters who decide to vote in Ann Arbor may have a large impact on the outcome of elections. Many Californians, coming from a predominantly blue state, had the same mindset about where to vote as red state southerners. “I’m voting in Michigan because I am from California where the Democrats will win no matter what, so I figured I would vote here where my vote will count more,” said Engineering Sophomore Nona Ebrahimi with similar logic as Frye. Another reason out of state students vote in Michigan instead of their home states is convenience. “I’m voting in Michigan, not in Connecticut, mostly because it’s easier,” said LSA Senior Diane Hunt. The complications or lack of knowing how to apply for absentee balloting, missing deadlines in their home states, and the ease of registering to vote in Michigan were the most common reasons out of state students CONTRADICTIONS Continued from FRONT PAGE
There is validity in exploring how related McCain’s policies are to President Bush’s, just as there is rationale in questioning Obama’s relationships and judgment. These men are running for the U.S. presidency. However, the charges and generalizations of these campaigns have not been formulated in the spirit of truth. On October 15, 2008, at Hofstra University, both candidates generously contributed to the political milieu of this election in what was the third and final debate. McCain claimed that the Obama healthcare plan would mimic Canada’s system, in which there would
5. Drink Heavily: It helps. Nothing goes down smoother than Jack with your Election Night coverage. And who knows, someday you can tell your children that you have absolutely no memory of the most important night in American political history because you tried to play Edward Forty-Hands with Jose Cuervo and passed out on your couch. 6. Think About the Future: Four years from now, we will do all of this over again. And it will be just as annoying and excessive. MR er fraud allegations.” State Senator Nancy Casis, Republican from Novi, Michigan believes “that the integrity of one persons right to vote is the most valuable right we have. The integrity of the system is first and foremost. It undermines our whole system when fraudulent behavior is going on.” Efforts have been taken in Michigan however, to restore voter confidence. “[Attorney General Mike Cox] really stepped up to the plate,” Senator Casis continues, “[and] we have seen instances in Michigan where a person [has been charged] with six felonies.” Recently the McCain campaign has accused Senator Obama of holding ties to ACORN, and possibly funding their voter registration. The Obama campaign had paid $832,000 to a group known as Citizen’s Services during the primary season, for sound and lighting, as well as “get-out-the-vote efforts.” Citizen’s Services contracted ACORN for these efforts, giving as much as $80,000 to the ACORN office in New Orleans, Louisiana. States have been working hard to root out and deal with fraudulent voter applications. The FBI has also become involved in some states, such as in Nevada, where a task force has been set up to prevent voter fraud. The 2000 presidential election was decided by 500,000 votes. MR
“I Voted Red (And I Liked It)” Sung to the Tune of Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl”
LYRICS BY LINDSEY DODGE ‘10
This was never the way I planned Not my intention I got so brave, ballot in hand Lost my discretion It’s not what I’m used to Just wanna try you on I’m curious for you Caught my attention (Chorus 1) I voted red and I liked it The thrill of lower taxes I voted red just to try it I hope my teach’ don’t mind it It felt so wrong It felt so right Don’t mean I’m Republican tonight I voted red and I liked it I liked it No, I don’t even know your name It doesn’t matter, It may or may not be McCain I’m pretty sure “M”’s the first letter, It’s not what, Good Wolverines do Not how they should behave My head gets so confused Hard to obey (Chorus 2) I voted red and I liked it The kicks of the 2nd amendment I voted red just to try it I hope my grades don’t show it It felt so wrong It felt so right Don’t mean I’m from ‘Bama tonight I voted red and I liked it I liked it, Us ‘Pubs we are so logical Thick skin, red states, so rational Hard to resist so economical Too good to deny it Ain’t no big deal, I buy it! (Repeat Chorus 1 & 2) MR
find voting in Michigan more convenient. Many students from other states in the Midwest are opting to vote in their home states, some of which are bigger swing states than Michigan. In particular, students from the state of Ohio are keeping their voter registrations in their home state. “I’ve decided to vote absentee because I believe voting in Ohio makes my vote more ‘valuable’—Ohio proves to be a swing state in nearly every recent election and Ohio also has more electoral votes at stake,” said LSA Senior Reid Benjamin. Besides finding their votes more ‘valuable’ in their home states, many out-of-state students decided where to vote based on which state’s issues effected them more. “I want to vote somewhere where my vote makes an immediate impact on my circumstances,” said LSA Senior Mike Fillichichia. “If I vote back to Illinois, I’ll vote there again, but right now, Michigan legislation has a significantly greater impact on my life.”
“When I registered to vote in Michigan, it was not because Kansas always votes the same way and by a large margin, but because in the last three years, I have been in Kansas for less than seven months,” explained LSA Senior Will Patterson, “laws in Kansas affect my daily life about as much as those in Texas.” Caring more or having a better understanding of issues in their home state is another reason out-of-state students choose to vote in their home state.“I have a better grasp of the Maryland state politics and issues than I do about Michigan’s… the local elections are what swayed my decision,” explained Engineering Junior Doug Rigterink. MR
be a government-run, single payer healthcare insurance program. This was untrue; Obama’s plan is not that extreme and offers more choices than completely nationalized systems. However, Obama has made optimistic exaggerations of his healthcare plan, including the extent to which it would relieve the burden on the average individual. In the same debate, Obama claimed, “And 100 percent, John, of your ads – 100 percent of them have been negative.” For one week, almost 100 percent of McCain’s ads were reported to be negative. In all other weeks they were not. Moreover, in some weeks Obama’s percentage of negative ads far exceeded those
of McCain’s. Obama attempted to play John McCain’s maverick card by stating that he opposed his party when he supported a bill on tort reform. In reality, 41% of Democrats voted for this bill. Additionally, the Congressional Quarterly reports that in Obama’s three years in the Senate, he voted along party lines nearly 97% of the time. The Obama campaign’s assertion that Obama has reached across the aisle more than John McCain is thus arguable at best. CONTRADICTIONS Continued on PAGE 14
Election Humour & Continuations
3. Think of the Big Picture: We made it through eight years of Grover Cleveland and people probably thought that would result in Armageddon. No matter what anyone says, whoever wins this election probably won’t take your guns, tattoo a Bible on your poodle, and attempt an unprovoked raid on American Samoa. Unless those goddamned Samoans don’t stop their assault on American values.
4. Don’t Talk Politics: Everyone is tired of that kid who knows the latest electoral polling results. Don’t be that kid. I don’t care who your dad knows or what politician you interned with that summer (you know, when you got wasted and threw up on the National Mall). Talk about sports. Talk about Madonna. Talk about Halloween. Talk about Uggs. Anything but politics. Give us all one week of pure apolitical conversation, and you will be rewarded by not being punched in the face.
PAGE 13 P.
PAGE 14
10.30.2008
Also in this third debate, McCain inac
‘refundable tax credit.’ It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don’t. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as ‘welfare,’ but please try not to ruin the show.” Obama’s tax plan is misleading. However, most working individuals who do not pay income taxes still are taxpayers; almost every worker pays Social Security and Medicare taxes. Therefore, Obama justifies his tax plan by claiming the refundable tax credits are not welfare, but rather that they provide a lessening of the total federal tax burden for many individuals. Nevertheless, McCain offers similar refundable tax credits in his healthcare plan. The difference is that, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, “The big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain’s proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don’t now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn’t create a new one.”
Advertisements on television have been another prime source for consumer manipulation. One Obama ad claims that McCain proposes a $4 billion tax break for oil companies. In reality, McCain has suggested nothing specifically of the kind. Rather, for all companies he proposes a reduction in the corporate income tax rate…not just for oil companies. In addition, www. factcheck.org reports, “In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits…These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain’s policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned.” This election marks a sea change in a variety of important topics as more constituents find themselves represented by candidates. But the tradition of political mud-slinging appears to have continued unabated. MR
BANDWAGON Continued from PAGE 5
has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician… Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it’s standing in the world, that’s why we’re going to support Barack Obama. On Sunday, October 19th, Colin Powell, a Republican who served under George W. Bush as the nation’s first black secretary of state, announced on NBC’s Meet the Press that he would break with his party and support Obama. “He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure,” said Powell. He came to this conclusion “because of [Obama’s] ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across Ameri-
ca, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities.” Like Buckley, he also noted that the nomination of Sarah Palin was important in influencing his decision. He said that “we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, [and] I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.” These endorsements as well as many more, exhibit a trend in crossover voting. For Republicans specifically, this is supported by data from Gallup poll showing that the number of both conservative and moderate Republicans supporting Obama has continued to increase since August 25th. MR
MEDIA Continued from PAGE 5
en boy image or George W. Bush’s swagger, character and personality became extremely important to political success. Television producer and Nixon campaign consultant Roger Alies once said, “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it.” In the 2008 contest for the presidency, both campaigns have used the media to the fullest and worked to find new ways to reach undecided voters. Television advertisements are now commonplace. The growth of collaborative website usage has made Facebook a requirement for major candidates. If email lists were the highlight of previous elections, Barack Obama upped the ante by text-messaging his supporters his choice of running mate. Obama will also be targeting young men by placing advertisements in some video game packages.
Clearly, the development and utilization of computer technology by political campaigns has reached new heights. The themes covered by campaign advertising have changed as well. The Reagan campaign ads in 1980 were focused on trust, encouraging the public and assuring them that Ronald Reagan was the antidote to a perceived malaise resulting from economic crises and the Iranian hostage crisis. The Clinton ads of 1992 were more focused with trying to establish Clinton as an everyday American, friendly and relatable with a focus on working class issues. As the use of media has evolved, so have the campaign ads. The 1980s featured a stronger focus on specific issues. Campaign strategists hoped that the public would vote for the candidate with a strong foreign policy or economic plan. Twelve years later, Clinton campaign ads were more focused toward trying to project Clinton as an average American up to the task of overhauling welfare and cutting taxes. These ads were more focused towards Clinton’s personality than his policies. The increased focus on the personal characteristics of candidates by the public, rather than their political philosophies, has continued to 2008. Another edge the media provides to presidential races is the televised presidential debates. Voters can see how their candidates justify their policies and views and how they handle difficult questions. These debates play an even more important role in today’s environment as every detail regarding the candidates is common knowledge, meaning that the candidates will be asked more probing and difficult questions. For the 2008 elections, Gallup polls show that roughly twothirds of Americans reported tuning in to each of the three presidential debates, including 63% for the Sept. 26 debate largely focused on foreign policy, 66% for the Oct. 7 town-hall-style debate, and 65% for the most recent debate on domestic policy. These numbers clearly show that the results of these debates will have a huge say in determining who goes to the White House. The media impact on how campaigns are conceived and run has grown to epic proportions as both parties attempt to enter the minds of Middle Americans and young voters. MR
NET Continued from PAGE 5
be considered very carefully”, while Obama has publicly declared his pro-Internet freedom stance since 2006, by giving speeches (one through a podcast in 2006) and supporting Internet Freedom Preservation Act bills. In addition, McCain has announced that he will seek a permanent ban on Internet taxes as President, according to his official website; Obama has a similar stance but has not declared anything long-lasting. It is unclear if the pro-net neutrality legislation will
CONTRADICTIONS Continued from PAGE 13
Advertisements & Continuations
curately stated that Obama’s support of a budget resolution raised taxes on taxpayers making $42,000; in actuality, budget resolutions set standards, but do not raise taxes. McCain was referring to different legislation that is required to actually implement tax increases. Nevertheless, Obama’s current tax plan lowers taxes for such individuals. Regarding his tax plan, Obama has constantly repeated that it will lower taxes for 95% of American working families. The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel stated, “To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he ‘cut’ zero? Abracadabra! It’s called a
snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises… Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?” Buckley’s denunciation of McCain was echoed by another descendant of American conservative thought, CC Goldwater, granddaughter of Barry Goldwater. In an article on The Huffington Post, she wrote that she believes “the Republican brand
stood for politically appeared to become of little importance ; rather, the public’s perception of a candidate’s personality determined for whom they were voting. Whether it was Ronald Reagan’s charisma, Kennedy’s gold-
www. michiganreview .com
ity, McCain has given a politically correct answer, “Anything that impinges on the ability for people to have access needs to
NET Continued on PAGE 15
10.30.2008 4.1.08
PAGE 15 P. 11
NET Continued from PAGE 14
be passed, but it also depends on the candidate who is chosen to be the future President—whoever Americans pick, regulation of the Internet may be affected. MR BRADLEY Continued from PAGE 10
during the primary season, the pre-polling conducted matched the actual election outcomes in Senator Obama’s favor. “Polls are not always accurate,” Dr. Hutchings continues, “but it remains to be seen if they are more likely to be inaccurate for Obama.” Barack Obama is now running strongly in the presidential race against John Mccain, with many polls showing him with a six or seven point lead nationally. The Bradley Effect by no means diminishes this lead. It does however, provide an interesting lens through which to view the historic November 4th election, as well as the innumerable amount of polls that will assuredly precede and follow it. MR
Advertisements
PAGE 16 P.
Exclusive
Little
Campus, Big Election
10.30.2008 4.1.08
College Media & Political Campaigns
BY JANE COASTON ‘09
College media writers are having their work syndicated by outlets such as CBS, Politico, and TMZ.com, and presidential campaigns have taken notice. The campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama have made young voters a strategic priority and the Obama campaign in particular has worked to contact and engage college media outlets, despite the lack of numerical support to show that college students will respond. Through a series of interviews with professors, student journalists, and Senator Barack Obama, it appears that the trend towards working with college media will continue regardless of outcome. “Hi guys!” Barack Obama was on the phone in Newport News, Virginia, as Josh Earnest, his deputy press secretary, introduced him. 75 reporters from colleges and universities had obtained media call-in information, including the author of this story. The subject of this call and others featuring his wife, Michelle, was on voter registration and highlighting the value of grassroots participation by college students . “We’re at the defining moment of our history, and this election marks an extraordinary level of involvement”, said Senator Obama. The senator made a point of mentioning the upcoming dates for voter registration in several states, including Michigan. He noted the availability of absentee ballots and early voting procedures in Ohio and other key battleground states. Mr. Earnest highlighted earlier in the call the pendulous nature of the election, especially in oncesolid Republican states. “Uncertain times could have an even greater impact on young people.” The senator spoke for a few minutes. He took questions for the remaining time. The Michigan Review asked, “What are your thoughts on the future of affirmative action and the 2003 Supreme Court decision that declared the University of Michigan ‘points’ system unlawful?” Senator Obama responded, “Well, affirmative action can help to increase diversity, but it can be abused if used unfairly. I think that the Supreme Court got it right in 2003, and that race should be just one of many hardships considered in the application process. But here’s the broader point-- the biggest challenge is how do young people afford to go to college in the first place?” Senator Obama then used the question to discuss his plans for education-- a $4,000 tuition credit for 100 hours of community service
and encouraging more investment in early childhood education. He then reiterated his campaign’s platform on creating jobs in the energy sector and focusing on national infrastructure. This call acted as a special opportunity for the Obama campaign to focus on college issues while offering an opportunity for college journalists to talk to major political players. It’s an easy win for the campaign. There is a difference between the McCain and Obama campaigns’ targeting of college students. Colin Binkley, copy editor of The Lantern at the Ohio State University, sees it as a publicity ploy. He did not participate in a conference call sponsored by the Obama campaign, but says, “Obama’s conference calls seem, to me, to be nothing more than a gimmick employed by campaign managers to increase his visibility. McCain has made little effort to meet with college media, so when Obama fills that void, he is more likely to get college press attention in newspapers and radio and television shows.” Both Obama campaign strategists and media representatives believe that this is a shrewd move. Obama spokesman Brad Carroll wrote in an email to the author, “College newspapers serve as a major news source for students across Michigan and across the county, which is why the Obama campaign has hosted several conference calls with college media outlets.” Ben French, General Manager of UWire, a college newspaper syndicate owned by CBS, agrees. “Even with falling newspaper readership, college newspaper readership rates are still in the high nineties. People are still picking up a newspaper on the way to class, grabbing a paper that someone left in their seat. College newspapers are able to gain access to college-aged consumers.” The McCain campaign was unable to be reached for comment on this article, but in an interview with National Public Radio in July, spokesman Joe Pounder said, “John McCain sees young voters as a competitive demographic this year, and we’re going to go after them.” Jordan Schrader was Editor in Chief of the Michigan Daily in 2004 during the Presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John Kerry. He and his writers had some access to the campaigns, generally through student organizers on campus. “I don’t want to overstate our importance. I don’t think John Edwards’ political future hinged on our editorial board’s endorsement. But certainly we were an important source of information for 18,000 students every day, and through us they learned about how their choice would affect issues that mattered to them like Pell grants and raceconscious admissions.” The general statement is repeated outside of the Michigan campus. Jamie Klein, staff writer for the Daily Nebraskan, participated in an Obama Campaign-sponsored conference call with Michelle Obama, wife of the Presidential candidate. “The press conferences have helped us bring this year’s presidential election closer to students. Seeing coverage in their student newspaper makes the election easier to grasp because our articles are focused to students and issues that students care about.” When discussing Michigan, Jason Pesick, Editorial Editor of the Michigan Daily in 2004, agreed and felt that the attempts by the Obama campaign to reach college journalists were warranted. “I think this strategy makes a lot of sense. College newspapers enjoy strong, stable readership on campus. I also think such an important part of his strategy is to take advantage of his appeal among students and young voters. Obviously, in order to make that strategy work, the campaign has to be in touch with college papers.” Michael Phillips, Editor In Chief of the Review in 2004, responded,
“I would characterize the interaction between the Review and the national campaigns as limited at best.” Fara Warner is the Howard R. Marsh Visiting Professor of Journalism at the University of Michigan. She agreed that the Obama campaign is heavily focused on young voters, and mentioned that the Democratic candidate has also used “technology that is far more familiar to younger generations than to older generations”, such as text messages and Facebook. She cautioned against assumptions by members of the media or candidates regarding the voting tendencies of those between the ages of 18 and 22. “Neither one should focus on one group of voters to a point where they aren’t focusing on other voters. Not everyone of that age range is in college, in fact, in many states those young people would be in a minority of the younger generation. You can’t assume-either the media or the candidate--that everyone in the age group will vote the same way.” College degrees are rarer than commonly thought. According to 2007 data from the United States Census Bureau, 17.5% of those civilians eighteen years old and over obtain bachelor’s degrees. Based on previous elections and despite the best efforts of traditionally liberal campaign strategists, this population demographic is least likely to vote. Vincent L. Hutchings, Research Assistant Professor at the Institute for Social Research at Michigan: “Individuals under 25 are the least likely age demographic to vote. Their number will likely be up this year, but so too will everyone else’s. As per usual, the young will be the least likely to vote again this year.” A larger problem for candidates who rely on college news media is that college towns are generally immune to national voting trends. In 2004, Washtenaw County polling data shows that 63.4% of voters in the county voted for John Kerry. In 1988, when Michigan favored George H.W. Bush by 54%, Washtenaw County overwhelmingly voted for Michael Dukakis. In fact, no Republican has won Washtenaw County, seat of the University of Michigan, in decades. Thus, the inherently Democratic character of many large universities alters the perception of their media outlets and skews their actual effectiveness in providing an accurate depiction of national voting trends. College newspapers are incubators for journalists and political thinkers, but they are not microcosms of national electoral politics. It is difficult to tell just what effect college media will have on this presidential race, if any. MR
Conservative? Libertarian? Just Sick of Political Correctness Already? If so, join...
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW
For 25 years, THE MICHIGAN REVIEW has been the sole voice of conservatism and rationality on campus.