Volume 55, Issue 8 March 12, 2021 advocate-online.net
FOR THE STUDENTS BY THE STUDENTS
Multi-party democracy's impact on America PAGE 2-3
KMHD2: What lies ahead for the program PAGE 4
TED CRUZ'S TRIP TO MEXICO PAGE 5
4
Trump's impeachment and acquittal PAGE 6
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
2019 FIRST PLACE
General Excellence
Pacific Northwest Assoc. of Journalism Educators
OPINION | COLUMN
A D V O C AT E-O N L I N E.N E T
WHAT GOOD WOULD MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA DO FOR THE LEFT? Marin Thorsen The Advocate
With controversy over U.S. elections and their structure fresh in mind, what do we make of a proposed switch to a multi-party political system? Here’s one analysis, with a hint at the future: It won’t solve the frustration of Progressives, at least not quickly.
America in the last couple of decades. Furthermore, I find the premise that the two parties have the ability to gatekeep extremist movements from taking hold to be unacceptable. The 2016 election has demonstrated that it is possible for a major party to be taken over by more extreme elements of that party, given
Failings of the two-party system Whenever electoral reform is brought up in the United States, which is not often, there is often a line of argument brought against a change to a multi-party system, that goes as follows: 1) Two-party systems promote stability more effectively than a multi-party system.
The legality of electoral reform
2) Two-party systems are a means to suppress views that are too extreme and radical. 3) Instability and the rise of extremism are often what leads to the downfall of democracy. Therefore, it is considered in America’s best interest that the two-party system remains and is reinforced. This is the strongest argument I have seen used, and is often times the most popular argument whenever a country with a “First-past-the-post” system is holding a referendum on the issue of major electoral reform. Though the strongest defense of our current system, I take issue with this line of thinking. First, the reason it seems likely that a two-party system would have a stabilizing effect on a country isn’t because of its effectiveness at getting tasks of the government done, but because it is a system instead that dampens democracy – by incentivizing political conformity in society. Second, I am not convinced that the two-party system can guarantee this stability, anyway. In some ways, in fact, it has created tribalistic divisions in a way that would not occur in a multi-party system, such as the “blue bad, red good” mentality that has dominated political discourse in
because he is a Republican, and in fact, is THE Republican. This is a danger in a two-party system that is often ignored. Though I won’t imply that the rise of fascism in America will be remedied by electoral reform, it is important to emphasize that the fact we live in a twoparty system plays a big role in American Fascism today. People, for one reason or another, feel disenfranchised by this current two-party system. Some feel that there isn’t a real option they are presented with at the ballot box, so therefore, they won’t vote. And while their emotions certainly do not come from nowhere, this sort of behavior is extremely unhealthy for a democracy. And I seriously doubt that we will be able to alleviate this sentiment in any meaningful way in our present electoral framework. Surely, there are other options at play.
the correct circumstances. And when this happens, it becomes far harder to contain the extremists, since they may control one of the most powerful institutions in the country. For example, how many Republicans did not vote for Trump on the basis that he was too extreme? Not many. Even people that we would consider moderate Republicans are/were fine with Trump being in office and will defend him viciously against his critics. And it’s not because there were necessarily part of his base, but rather
For those who wish for electoral reform on a national level, I have some bad news. The federal government – Congress, the courts, the president – has very little power in how elections are conducted. Rather it is the states themselves that make most of the rules. The good news, though, is that the U.S. Constitution says very little about how exactly elections are held. All it will take for significant reform is a change within any state’s constitution or even simply a bill that changes election laws. States, as far as my understanding of the Constitution goes, can do whatever they want with how they hold Web Graphic. elections, so long as they doen’t violate the various Supreme Court rulings on election laws and the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment. So, theoretically, a state can do things a lot differently if it really wanted to. But, at the moment, most states chose not to. When it comes to presidential elections, there is also some leeway at the state level. However, what won’t change is the fact that there is an Electoral College. That is
for the students by the students Co Editors-in-Chief Daniella Young Brad Le
Graphic Design Editor Stephanie DeBruin
Arts & Entertainment Editors [Positions Open]
Copy Editor Chris Barney
Assistant Opinion Editor Omar Carrillo
Web Editor Daniella Young
News Editor Brad Le
Broadcast Producer Naethaniel Lile
PA G E 2
Broadcast A.D. [Position Open] Broadcast Hosts [Positions Open] Photo Team [Positions Open]
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Ad Manager [Position Open]
Social Media Manager [Position Open]
Staff Writers Ash Espinoza Carson Koch Marin Thorsen Tyrnan Mcgivney
Distribution Specialist [Position Open]
@mhccadvocate
Advisers Dan Ernst Howard Buck
@theadvocateonline @mhccadvocate
OPINION | COLUMN
MARCH 12, 2021
here to stay until we amend Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution. But the Constitution never told states how to allocate their EC votes – all of the states just happen to have strikingly similar rules on how to reward electors. Again, if a state really wanted, they wouldn’t have to follow the norms. It may be the case that a number of states are going to be doing that, anyways, given the right conditions. Several are already trying to circumnavigate the Electoral College by changing their laws on how they award electors. Based on the outcome of the national popular vote (simply, whichever candidate wins the most total votes across the U.S.), these states will pledge all of their electors to the more popular candidate. If enough states agree, to where the number of electors awarded based on this agreement reaches 270 (the mathematical majority required to win the presidency), the Electoral College will become effectively dysfunctional. In summary, the nature of the American system basically makes any nationwide electoral reform highly impractical, at the least, or legally impossible, at worst. Any change in the United States’ electoral system will have to be local in nature. And if there is a wave of electoral reform in the U.S., it is likely we will have a variety of different systems in different states. Personally, that would make the U.S. more interesting to me – but would make the Union messy and confusing to many. Say we do have a multi-party democracy: Now what? Let’s just say we have gotten past our hurdles of reforming American democracy in such a way that promotes the formation of strong and viable third (or more) party/ parties. Now what happens? What does the Left gain from this? Locally speaking, it is probably good news for the Left, as it would now be easier to build local political grass-roots institutions with cities or even states. Nationally though, I don’t think that much would change. I think there would be some positive changes, but Progressives would find themselves in a very familiar position
even without having to be in the same party as the Democrats. First, let’s make a scenario to visualize what is likely to happen. Currently, we have the Democratic and Republican parties. Once electoral reform is accomplished, three or four things will happen: 1) The Progressive faction of the Democrats will divorce from the Liberals. 2) The Libertarians among the Republicans will see little reason in supporting the Republicans anymore and consolidate around the fledgling Libertarian Party. 3) Trumpists would probably form the America First Party, or something like that. 4) (Possibly) The Greens might pick up a few seats in Congress, if they are lucky. Let’s focus on the Democrats and the progressives. With the Progressives gone, the Democrats will no longer have an incentive to appeal to left-wing policies and will be more aggressively centrist. They will probably even pitch themselves as the middle-of-the-road alternative to the extremists – being neither left- nor right-wing. These voters are, unfortunately, the plurality of the party currently, and will continue to be more powerful than the Progressive Party. My guess is they would pick up around 25-30% of the vote, on normal election years. Progressives would, in turn, become the new left-wing party – likely centerleft, akin to milquetoast Social Democratic Parties that are seen internationally. They would have genuine left-wing policies and campaign as populists. They would probably get 15-20% of the vote, making them the third-largest party. Next are the Republicans, likely a little bit more toned down, since they wouldn’t have to appeal to the Trump types, anymore. But they are still social conservatives who have a strong religious undertone, and they are, by international standards, a little more extreme than the average European conservative: They would
make up 20-25% of the vote, assuming the Trumpists leave the party. Now come the Libertarian and the America First parties. They would each get about 10-15% of the vote on a normal election year. Libertarians are aggressively anti-welfare, and they prefer the old policy of isolationism, or at least for the U.S. to restrain its interactions with the rest of the world. America First are a ragtag group of closet fascists (or open fascists) loyal to Trump, basically his personal base. Okay, so let’s run a theoretical 2032 national election where we have achieved electoral reform or something of that sort. This is a breakdown of House of Representative seats (218 out of 435 would be needed to form a functioning coalition government): Democratic: 114 (26%) Republican: 91 (21%) Progressive: 87 (20%) America First: 69 (16%) Libertarian: 35 (8%) Green: 17 (4%) Independent/Other: 22 (5%) Wow, that was a messy election. There wasn’t a clear winner and what is going to have to happen is a coalition will need to be formed, which would likely be called a “caucus” in the U.S. Congress. The Democrats did come out on top, so it looks like unless talks to form a caucus fall through, they will be leading whatever government/majority caucus is formed. So, as a centrist party, what are the options that the Democrats have? The main concern right now is that the America First Party did decently well in the last election and they are extremely unpopular among those who didn’t vote for them. Chances are, then, that most parties will avoid even involving them in any caucus. That leaves Democrats with two realistic options: They can approach the Republicans, or they can approach
the Progressives and Greens. With the Progressives and Greens, they would be have barely enough seats, combined, to garner a majority. But let’s say that the Democrats come to the Progressives, just so I can make my point. The Progressives and Democrats sit down at the negotiation table, and the Progressives made a lot of campaign promises during the last election cycle (such as a $25 minimum hourly wage, cancellation of all student debt, and a federal jobs guarantee). What do you think will happen if the Progressives demand those provisions? The Democrats will just tell them no. And if the Progressives constantly harass them about it, the Democrats can just leave and talk with the Republicans instead. The Democrats will work with Progressives only if they feel that the Progressives will be an easier partner to work with in governing the nation. And the Progressives will have to be careful, too, because they are more likely to be blamed for coalition talks failing and allowing America First another opportunity of winning more votes. So what would be the smart thing for Progressives to do? The answer likely is to accept the half measures that the Democrats and the Progressives hammer out and essentially accept a centrist, but slightly left-leaning, government. In essence, basically what normally happens now – but with a little more silver lining. Maybe if the Progressives gain more ground next election, the Democrats will give them more concessions. But that’s a big “if.” So, back to my main point. While I think a third party is something that the Left should strive for, I don’t want Progressives to be under the illusion that this will somehow change things fundamentally for them. Unless the establishment has an extremely bad election year, the Progressives will likely remain a junior partner in a caucus for the foreseeable future. And that means the Democrats throw them some breadcrumbs while the Progressives must accept their policy agenda. That is not a really savory position in which to be, but, hey – it’s basically the position they are in now.
GET TO KNOW THE ADVOCATE
Cover by: Stephanie DeBruin On the cover: Snowman Graphic
Contact us! E-mail: advocatt@mhcc.edu Website: advocate-online.net Mt. Hood Community College Room 1369 26000 SE Stark Street Gresham OR 97030
The Advocate encourages readers to share their opinion by letters to the editor and guest columns for publication. All submissions must be typed and include the writer’s name and contact information. Contact information will not be printed unless requested. Original copies will not be returned to the author. The Advocate will not print any unsigned submission. Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and guest columns should not exceed 600. The decision to publish is at the discretion of the editorial board. The Advocate reserves the right to edit for style, punctuation, grammar and length. Please bring submissions to The Advocate in Room 1369, or e-mail them to advocatt@mhcc.edu. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Monday the week of publication to be considered for print. Opinions expressed in columns, letters to the editor or advertisements are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Advocate or MHCC.
Daniella Young Co-Editor-in-Chief Daniella Young, 20, is a sophomore and excited to continue her journey with the Advocate! She plans to major in Elementary Education at Eastern Oregon University and incorporate music into the profession as well. Aside from writing stories, she enjoys singing, playing guitar, volunteering, reading, and walking her dog, Spinner.
PA G E 3
NEWS | SPORTS
A D V O C AT E-O N L I N E.N E T
THE FUTURE OF KHMD2 Brianne Burgess The Advocate
KMHD2, Mt. Hood’s student-run livestreaming “broadcast” program, is embracing the rapid pace of technological advancements by shifting towards a multimedia platform. The co-curricular program’s plan includes development of an iOS and Android app, with hopes of those being completed at the end of Spring Term. The app will allow students to engage with their peers, and the community at large. The shift is a timely one. With no signs of virtual connectivity slowing down, the need for an interactive application is real. More and more colleges and universities are turning to apps to keep students connected and engaged, according to an article from Peterson’s, a college services company. These apps contain upcoming events, breaking news, campus maps, and can even provide special alerts. With this new platform, the KMHD2 livestream content will be created cohesively by the students, for the students, with an idea of reaching a broader audience. The updates to this co-curricular program should give participants the hands-on experience of creating, managing and designing media content while familiarizing themselves with the equipment needed to do so. Forced to adapt by the formal phaseout of MHCC’s traditional broadcasting program (mandated by college officials in early 2020), KMHD2 leaders hope to modernize the
Web Graphic.
student-run media while paying tribute to the longtime history of KMHD radio, and its jazz music affiliation. JD Kiggins, Integrated Media instructor and the student media adviser, spoke of the desire to maintain a music-focused radio program associated with KMHD2 while adopting new digital programs. After the student radio station’s funding via student fees was eliminated by last year’s Associated Student Government (ASG), he has continued finding ways to fund the music program, either by redirecting funds from the instructional budget or using money outof-pocket. “I didn’t want to lose the legacy of all the music,” Kiggins said. KMHD-FM (89.1 FM
on radio and also streaming online), founded by MHCC, has been providing jazz to Multnomah County and the greater Portland area since 1984. KMHD2 is currently a music broadcast program of new emerging artists and what some would consider “college music.” With the student radio station securing enough funds to continue to operate, Kiggins invites all students to try their hand at “broadcasting” – which today, encompasses all of how we watch, listen and interact with the digital world. Virtual talk, educational, and entertainment programs are all examples
of broadcasting. Historically, any MHCC student has had the opportunity to utilize equipment and recording studios related to the student radio station. English students were often found recording spoken word for extra credit, and members of Mt. Hood’s own student newspaper, The Advocate, were able to gain experience in video streaming a weekly news broadcast. Looking ahead, students can still expect to have access to recording equipment regardless of their affiliation with the cocurricular KMHD2 program. Every group or individual could find a use, such as Mt. Hood’sASG recording and broadcasting its annual candidate debates, The Advocate providing news programs, or any student who has an idea for a podcast producing one. The student radio station is incorporating these factors into redevelopment of its cocurricular activities and what those will look like for students and staff. Those with further interest in participating in student media, whether it be starting a podcast, reserving a music block slot, or getting involved, may reach out to Kiggins with any questions at jd.kiggins@mhcc.edu, and in the meantime, tune into the music broadcast program online at http://kmhd2. org/
“I DIDN’T WANT TO LOSE THE LEGACY OF ALL THE MUSIC” -JD KIGGINS
HOW TOP DRAFT PICKS ARE DOING AT THE NBA SEASON HALFWAY MARK Aaron Badibo The Advocate
The 2020 NBA Draft class has been quite a surprise to all, as the 2020-21 season reaches the halfway mark. First of all, the rookies selected in the draft on Nov. 18 had zero-to-no time to even play games with the other professionals in the league, apart from practicing with their teammates and preparing for the season that began on Dec. 22. Never in history has a group of young NBA prospects had to stop playing for months while dealing with a pandemic and lockdowns across the globe. There has also never been a time where the new players have had to wait until November to be drafted into the league, as it normally always takes place in June, right after most of them leave college. The dream all these players had of walking across the television stage and shaking the NBA commissioner’s hand was not possible, due to the circumstances. However, the Class of 2020 did not back down from the
PA G E 4
challenges set before it. These players were eager to prove to the world why they were in the position they had earned. The top 5 picks, in order, consisted of Anthony Edwards, James Wiseman, LaMelo Ball, Patrick Williams, and Isaac Okoro. Plenty of eyes were on Ball, who is now playing for the Charlotte Hornets. Many doubted him as he took a quite untraditional route to the NBA. He left high school at age 16 to play professionally in Lithuania. He then played for a team in his father’s newly formed league. Finally, he came back to the United States to finish his high school career at Spire Academy, then ended his last year with a professional team called the Illawarra Hawks, in Australia. After all of this, Ball entered his name into the draft. Many observers were skeptical, as his style of play was quite different from the rest. However, he is currently ranked as No. 1 on the projected Rookie of the Year ladder and just set the record of becoming the youngest player in NBA history to have a tripledouble, with the stats of 22 points, 12 rebounds and 11 assists
in a game Jan. 9 against the Atlanta Hawks. Next chosen was Wiseman, who plays for the Golden State Warriors and is currently No. 2 on the ROY rankings. Despite only playing three games in college due to eligibility issues, he means something important to the Warriors already: He averages 10 points per game, along with 6.1 rebounds and 1.5 blocks. One other rookie worth mentioning is Edwards, now playing for the Minnesota Timberwolves, who attended the University of Georgia and is averaging 13 points per game, 2.9 rebounds and 2 assists. He has brought a spark to the Timberwolves this season with the energy he brings onto the floor, night in and night out. He has some improving to do with his shooting but also has the most potential among these NBA rookies to produce for the years to come. Although the year 2020 was not quite what anyone had planned, all these rookies fought their way through it and stuck to their plan of playing in the NBA – and the rewards of that are still in their reach as they become stars on the court.
MARCH 12, 2021
OPINION | COLUMN
TED CRUZ’ CANCUN TRIP AND THE DUTY OF POLITICIANS Omar Carrillo The Advocate
While his home state froze over last month, its people suffering starving through one of the worst climate disasters in the region’s modern history, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz gleefully boarded a plane headed toward the Mexican resort city of Cancun, perfectly content with abandoning those constituents he is paid far too much to represent. Only after the discovery of his trip and the public controversy born soon after would Cruz promptly return and express regret regarding the decision, first avoiding as much personal responsibility as possible by framing his family’s fleeing as the result
of the desires of his daughters, until finally admitting the excursion to have been a mistake altogether. Though this was a particularly selfish and cruel situation, similar episodes have proven excruciatingly common among those representatives we have entrusted with our voice. No, as prominent conservative journalist Ben Shapiro put it, we did not “expect Ted to go there with, like, a blowtorch and start defrosting all of the pipelines.” But it is literally the least a man with the power that Cruz has granted can do, to suffer alongside the souls he constantly insists he is doing his best to serve. Even more so, considering how much the consequences of the snowstorm and deep freeze were exacerbated by the capitalist-centric infrastructure policies he is a proud supporter of. It is true that you will never find a voter insisting on their preferred candidate’s indisputable perfection, but perhaps expecting such prominent individuals to, at the very least, meet the bare minimum of civic solidarity is far too low a standard to hold. The United States’ political structure, a democratic republic long-revered by its major political parties, evidently prides itself with its procedural traditions – an
especially lovely one being the essential immunity those individuals who serve in the major branches, in particular, carry from any potentially terrible policy they decide to thrust upon the people. No, it is not exactly treading new ground to criticize the American system of government and the privilege politicians instantly receive upon entering office. But it is never not worth highlighting the growing disparity existing between the American citizen and the individual whose labor has been pretty arbitrarily deemed more valuable, no matter how much their decision making deviates from the intentions of their electors, the voters. The cliché of the public’s scoff and sneer toward political representatives does, in fact, appear to exist for a reason. That being said, it would be dishonest to claim anybody capable of perfectly pleasing even most voters could ever exist. And yet Cruz, choosing to turn his back on his fellow Texans’ agony, is emblematic of not only his own lack of selflessness, but also of how easily we willingly enable an entire class (one already holding the actual ability to dictate our future) to ignore us, without true consequence. While holding (or, at least, proclaiming) an undeniably admirable intention to better the lives of those around them, politicians should never be allowed to attain unquestioned supremacy over the people to which they are “servants.” Supremacy, in this fashion, is not merely apparent in the direct dictation of those who hold it, but is also obvious through observation of a clear ability to avoid Graphic by Stephanie DeBruin|The Advocate. consequences for horrible deeds or decisions. If a representative democracy truly is capable of properly serving the collective, empowered action from politicians should solely revolve around their vow of commitment toward achieving justice for the people.
PA G E 5
OPINION | COLUMN
A D V O C AT E-O N L I N E.N E T
THE STUPENDOUSLY SILLY SECOND SOIREE IS SQUASHED Chris Barney The Advocate
Former President Donald Trump has been acquitted, again. This isn’t surprising, considering the fact that Congress has been turning into something of a freak show. Congress is a circus, a shell of what it used to be – from representatives lying about almost being killed, to trying to impeach a president twice not because he did something wrong, but simply because members cannot bear the idea of having a president who does not work in favor of their agenda. It can be safely said that the government is seriously forgetting how it works and what is important. I, for one, am appalled at nearly everything I hear about Congress anymore. It is only working to bring the downfall of this country, because its members are picking and choosing sides, thus causing an internal war. As it has been said, “No city or house divided against itself will stand.” This statement goes for countries and kingdoms, too. One of the latest, greatest examples of this is the second impeachment of FORMER President Trump. It is sad enough that the country had to endure even the first impeachment. The first one was utterly ridiculous, and the second even more ridiculous than that. There are many reasons why.
they are fearful of another four years of him, and will stop at nothing to prevent it. They just cannot handle the idea of their precious scheme getting mangled up. This tells me they are power hungry and would love nothing more than to control who is in the White House instead of focusing on something like, Oh, I don’t know – doing THEIR JOBS! Even though senators passed a vote making the second impeachment “legal” (acting after Trump left office) that does not make it “just.” What’s worse, Congress went into this process knowing they would not have the two-thirds Senate majority necessary to convict, which further proves the stupidity of the whole thing. Taken out of context Second, Trump was in no way responsible for the violent events of Jan. 6. While he did use phrases in his speech that day such as “fight like hell,” he was not implying
Too late for legitimate action First and foremost is the fact that Congress has a horrendous sense of timing. When this process was started in January, Trump had mere days left in office. Knowing how the government works, that is not nearly enough time to carry out such proceedings – not to mention the fact that members should have been more focused on the incoming administration and all the work that entails. Essentially, though, the Senate tried to impeach a PRIVATE CITIZEN, which is unconstitutional. The section of the Constitution about impeachment reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This means that the purpose of impeachment is to remove a SITTING PRESIDENT from office if he has committed a horrible crime. Since Trump was out of office before the Senate trial could commence, it doesn’t work. It makes about as much sense as an employer trying to tell an employee that they are fired, after they already quit. To be fair on this point, I acknowledge that impeachment is also to prevent people deemed troublesome from regaining an office; however, the general context of this maneuver is to remove someone from office and then decide whether they may hold office again in the future. The fact that Trump’s opponents are trying to keep him from being able to be re-elected in 2024 just shows me that PA G E 6
that people should break into the Capitol building and physically disrupt the Electoral College proceedings. It should not be forgotten that he also specifically said they should PEACEFULLY protest – the exact opposite of what took place. Trump was in no way implying that the people should raid the Capitol; he only meant that they should form as big a presence as possible OUTSIDE the building to get the attention of the members of Congress – the goal being to get them to think about what they were doing and reconsider the allegations regarding the election (which I believe was stolen, but that is a story for another time). Beyond his control Third, along with the fact that Trump’s speech was misinterpreted, is the fact that he was not actually present when the raid occurred. He wasn’t “party to the incident.” And before anyone chimes in with the claim the people raiding the Capitol were all “Trump supporters” just following his wishes, I would like to mention that least one individual arrested following the event admitted to being a
left-wing activist – meaning the raiding party was likely a mixed group, allowing for mixed motives for participation in the fracas. Sad state of affairs Ultimately, the reality that our government has become extremely divided – more than ever – was a sign that the Trump opponents were doomed to failure before the impeachment was even initiated. I am the type of person who likes to consult resources to learn about candidates before I cast a vote. There is a particular publication I use that lists all candidates of all parties and shows their responses to questions about key issues such as abortion or gun control in the form of yes or no answers. Usually, every candidate has a mix of answers. This was not so this year. With a few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats were completely divided on all issues presented in this publication. And so, again, House prosecutors were unlikely to get the two-thirds vote needed for impeachment, even with the few RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who would vote to impeach. The fact is, the government is worse than it has ever been. For perspective, I obviously side with one party and disagree with the other, but now I don’t even have complete confidence in my own party, because I feel the people of my party in Congress are not doing their jobs as they should. It is truly a shame that there was a second impeachment, let alone a first. It seems that nobody stopped to think about the fact that people hated Trump because he had the balls to say what other politicians wouldn’t. The government impeached Trump Web Photo. twice, not because he committed some egregious crime, but because these lawmakers were looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of the country. That is the issue: Politicians do not care about their oaths of office which state they will work for America. The government is corrupt because it is no longer concerned with America, but rather the will of those who are in government itself.