10.26.13 Special Issue: Politics

Special Section

Intern Column Jeremy Keys For anyone that has somehow been completely avoiding politics for the last two years, we at the Trinitonian have compiled the political positions of the two major nominees, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Below is a comparison of the two candidates with regards to some of the most important domestic and foreign policy issues facing the nation today.

Job Growth

Romney: Mitt Romney has claimed that the economy is stagnant and improving far too slowly, and a Romney/Ryan presidency would usher in a new era of prosperity. According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Romney has promised to create 12 million jobs over the next four years, although non-partisan analyses of this claim have shown that the economy plans to add 12 million jobs over

Politics

the next four years regardless of who wins the presidency.

Romney has been critical of the President’s economic policies, claiming that 44 straight months of unemployment above eight percent was longer than necessary.

Obama: President Obama’s campaign has countered that Obama’s administration has created millions of private sector jobs during his presidency and, according to The New York Times, that his administration not only stopped the jobs bleeding inherited from his predecessor (more than 400,000 jobs lost per month) but actually reversed the job losses (average monthly gains of 155,000 over the last 18 months).

Tax Policy

Romney: Mitt Romney believes in lowering the overall tax rate for individuals and corporations, cutting personal deductions, and “increasing the tax base” by eliminating tax loopholes for corporations.

He has specifically advocated cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

He also favors retaining the Bush-era tax cuts and increasing tax cuts for both middle-class and upper-class families.

Obama: President Barack Obama favors eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts only for people with incomes exceeding $250,000.

Obama also favors eliminating tax loopholes for corporations, and reducing the corporate tax rate.

Deficit Reduction

Both candidates have made claims that they would reduce the deficit. According to factcheck. org, Romney: Independent analyses have concluded that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would favor upper-income individuals and would increase the deficit by $3 trillion, although Romney claims that these studies are biased and inaccurate.

Obama: According to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study, President Obama’s favored deficit reduction plan would reduce the deficit by $3.8 trillion over 10 years.

Romney is critical of any plan that would include tax increases on the top two percent of wage earners

theTrinitonian OCT.26.2012

Defense Spending Obama: President Obama supports cutting future defense spending (but not current spending) as part of his deficit reduction plan.

Romney: Mitt Romney has said that he wants United States defense spending to equal at least 4% of the nation’s GDP, which analysts say could increase the deficit by as much as $2 trillion more compared to Obama’s proposed military spending.

According to npr.org, Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, has claimed that Obama has reduced military spending by $1 trillion, and Romney wishes only to restore that funding.

Nuclear Weapons

Obama: President Obama’s administration has stated that it will absolutely prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, but it wants to give time for economic sanctions and international pressure to force Iran to cease its plans pursuing weapons-grade enriched uranium.

17

graphic by Samantha Skory, Intern

Romney: According to The Jerusalem Post, Mitt Romney has indicated he would favor use of military action, stating that “regime change is what’s going to be necessary.” Romney has also indicated that he is willing to consider unilateral action, saying that “I don’t believe at this stage that we [a Romney/ Ryan administration] need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force.”

Education

Obama: President Obama supports granting waivers that would excuse states from certain No Child Left Behind provisions.

Obama’s administration has now granted waivers to 34 states and the District of Columbia. Obama favors increasing education spending.

Romney: Romney’s advisers have indicated he would most likely rescind waivers that had been already granted. Romney also favors holding education spending steady by neither reducing nor increasing the budget for education.

Vote the party, RANDOM FACTS ABOUT... not the person Mitt Romney...

... was born on the same day that President Truman issued the “Truman Doctrine”. ... though we call this presidential candidate “Mitt Romney”, his first name is actually Willard. ... spent time in France as a Mormon missionary while in college. ... lost his first political election to Ted Kennedy in the 1994 Massachusetts senate race. ... met his wife, Ann, in elementary school.

by Maddy Loeb, Intern

Barack Obama...

... is a fan of the Harry Potter novels. ... enjoys listening showtunes.

to

... says his favorite children’s book is “Where the Wild Things Are.” ... took Michelle to go see the movie “Do the Right Thing” on their first date. ... has a beer named after him in Kenya. ... hates ice cream.

.... has five sons.

... prefers to snack on chocolate-peanut protein bars.

... says his favorite snack is hot dogs.

... claims his favorite food to prepare is chili.

Guest Column David Crockett When it comes to elections, Americans tend to adopt the view that it is important to vote for the person, not the party. The civically virtuous citizen is supposed to research all the issue positions of all the candidates for all the races before making those precious choices that determine the fate of the republic. This perspective is so ingrained in us that many people look with disdain upon those who vote a straight ticket.

I know this because I have experienced it. I almost always vote a straight ticket, and when people find that out they open their eyes wide and accuse me of “turning off my brain.” They seem to think I’ve become some sort of partisan zombie, mindlessly following the impulse of a predatory and sub-rational appetite to feed upon the living flesh of better

citizens. I half expect them to point their accusing fingers at me and scream “Walker!” while they reach for their guns and crossbows.

But consider the logic behind straight ticket voting.

To learn all the issue positions of all the candidates for all the races, we’re going to need a lot of information.

Residents of Bexar County will have at least 42 computer screens of choices on election day, containing almost 200 different candidates for all of these races. Even if the information is free, it’s almost always incomplete, and it takes a lot of time to digest it.

Studying politics is my business, but even I can’t afford to devote the time necessary to read three daily newspapers, three weekly news magazines, and a wide assortment of policy journals, much less watch or listen to enough public affairs broadcasting or scan enough web sites to get all this data firm in my head.

Let’s face it : most of us would rather spend our time on more enjoyable activities.

see STRAIGHT Page 18

Politics

OCT.26.2012 18 theTrinitonian

Straight-ticket is the way to go • continued from Page 6

I may know a lot about the issue differences that separate Obama from Romney, and I may even know something about what distinguishes Ted Cruz from – well, from whatever sad sack he’s running against. But the state legislature? County judges?

Justices of the peace, sheriffs and constables? If you can do that, you probably have too much time on your hands.

Straight ticket voting rests on the simple notion that political parties are associated with certain basic principles of justice that are relatively consistent over time. It doesn’t take a lot of sophistication to figure out which principles of justice you prefer, and that partisan label then becomes an informational shortcut that reduces the amount

of data needed to make a rational decision. My party vote becomes a standing decision until I’m given a good reason to change.

What does this do for me? For one thing it makes my experience in the voting booth short and easy.

I’m in and out in one minute. No agonizing over the choice for the 142nd District Judge. It also means I am consistent in my vote, sending a clearer message to the political class. If you vote for a president of one party and a senator from the other, you’re sending mixed signals. Do you want universal health care or not?

Do you want lower taxes or not?

No wonder they can’t get their act together….

I don’t ALWAYS vote straight ticket. I once lived in a congressional district in which the incumbent was firmly ensconced, and my party of choice did not

field a candidate. I had to vote for a third party in that race. Also, if I discover that someone from my party is manifestly unfit for public office and I have no other choices, I’ll abstain from that race. Not long ago there was a contest here in Bexar County in which it was painfully obvious that one of the major party candidates was not qualified to run for dogcatcher, much less the position he was seeking.

Straight ticket voting is a rational and prudent act that makes much easier the difficult task of wading through dozens of voting options in a general election when information is incomplete, costly and timeconsuming. Try it – you’ll thank me.

David Crockett is a professor in the department of political science.

Top five celebrity endorsements Celebrities have always had influence on society, whether it’s on what we’re wearing or where we’re eating. However, this scope isn’t exclusive to our consumer side. Celebrities are even swaying our votes.

We like their music or movies. We become invested in their personal Intern lives. Sometimes we even go as far as adopting their views. This means Column if they’re voting for someone, we’re voting for them, too. In the case of the politically uninformed voter, who also happens to be a diehard Ben Affleck fan, Affleck may be the only glimpse of political reality this

by Danielle Hoard voter gets. In the spirit of the election, let’s reflect on some of the most influential and surprising celebrity endorsements from this campaign season.

1. Oprah Winfrey for Barack Obama

Oprah was Obama’s #1 Fan in his 2008 campaign by throwing elaborate fundraisers, joining him on the campaign trail, and even inviting him on her show. Although the “Big O” claims she won’t be out on the trail this year, but Obama has her full support in the 2012 election.

2. Clint Eastwood for Mitt Romney

One can only expect controversy when you take a Hollywood Vet like Clint Eastwood and let him speak at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Eastwood’s support for Romney was made clear as he mockingly held dialogue with an empty chair, where he pretended sat President Obama.

3. Chuck Norris for Newt Gingrich

It’s hard to believe Newt Gingrich didn’t make it to office with the support of one “Walker Texas Ranger.” When prompted, Norris described Gingrich as “the best man left on the battlefield who is able to outwit, outplay and outlast Obama and his campaign machine.” How’s that for a roundhouse kick?

4. Nicki Minaj for ?

Nicki Minaj sent mixed signals with her lyrics on Lil Wayne’s Dedication 4 mix tape, appearing as though she was siding with Team Romney. Confusion ensued as the pop artist claims “I’m a Republican voting for Mitt Romney” in the song. Minaj cleared the air with a Tweet, confirming the lyrics as sarcasm and thanking Barack Obama for understanding.

5. Beyoncé Knowles for Barack Obama

It’s no secret Beyoncé stands behind President Obama. She’s best friends with Michelle Obama and travels on the road with her in support of her campaign against obesity. Knowles even performed at the Neighborhood Ball of Obama’s inauguration in 2008. With supporters like Beyoncé, Romney best be getting Katy Perry on the phone.

Photos by Sarah Cooper

graphic by Samantha Skory, Intern

Debates matter take the country, confidence in leadership, etc. As such, the candidates need to balance Topp appeals to ethos (credibility) Thoughts pathos (emotion) and logos (argument).

A candidate must appear confident, but not aggressive and must Sarah Topp, Columnist offset policy calculations and logical appeals with a mixture American viewership and of personal anecdotes and the response to the presidential touching narratives from the debate series have challenged campaign trail. Overreliance the resilient cultural narrative on or omission of any of these that Americans are cynical and leaves voters questioning apathetic about politics. Over the suitability of a candidate, 35 million Americans tuned into which is noticeable in various each of the presidential debates reactions to all of the debates and 25 million stayed up to in this election cycle. Although watch the post-debate analysis fact checkers may later dispute on various news stations. the truthfulness of some of the Polls suggest that the public candidates’ claims, the initial is engaged and responding reaction of voters during the actively to the debates, as well. debate has proven to be resilient In fact, after the first debate, we and enduring. The debates really witnessed a noticeable swing in do shape voters’ impressions of prediction polls, indicating that the candidates.

Romney had resurfaced as a real Debates also have a huge contender against Obama on impact because they have the November 6. After declarations potential to energize the base. of a strong Obama victory in the With the media’s overwhelming third debate, it is possible that focus on independent voters, it the gap will narrow again, but is easy to forget that the debates it is a bit too early to tell. The can also be an important factor question that might be asked in mobilizing supporters. in response is why the debates Republicans celebrating have such a huge impact.

Romney’s win in the first Some of the answers to this debate stepped up donations are predictable and mundane. to congratulate him and help It is the only time voters get to the campaign continue to move see the two candidates on the forward. Obama’s lackluster same stage answering the same performance in the first debate questions, which gives the voters was met with enormous the chance to compare policies. frustration and public outcry Also, because they are nationally of disappointment by his televised into peoples’ living longtime supporters. A strong rooms, debates are one of the third debate may prove to be only times when many voters what Obama needed to regain will actually see the candidates supporters’ confidence and to speak extemporaneously on a increase monetary donations. variety of issues that matter in Certainly, the debates are their lives. not the only factor that will Further, for undecided voters, determine the outcome of who are publicly framed as the the election, but the number target audience, a candidate’s of Americans who watched performance in the debates is a and responded to the debates primary factor that determines suggests that they are important. voting. These viewers are It also suggests that we might able to judge the candidates not be as apathetic as some have on a set of unwritten, but still Sarah Topp is a professor in important, criteria, including the the department of human appearance of being presidential, communication. She is also the aptness of policy, direction they’ll debate team coach.

theTrinitonian

Politics

OCT.26.2012

sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk • sidewalk side-

What political issue is most important to you?

Increase education budget

Marisa Olmo Junior

Increasing environmental awareness

Christine Hoelterhoff Sophomore

My healthy and prosperous sex life

James Jarrott Senior

Arts funding

Unemployment

Tito Sandigo First Year

The Case for Gary Johnson Intern Column Ian Halter In less than a month, the American populace will shuffle to the polls to cast their vote for president, to do their part in deciding the fate of the country for the next four years.

Unfortunately for those among us who are lovers of liberty and peace, the familiar choice at the polls becomes an altogether false one. We have a sitting president who has an abiding love of big government, undeclared wars, drone strikes on sovereign nations and the expansion of his own executive power. A president whose promises to protect our civil liberties have either gone unanswered or been completely reversed.

His contender is someone who will spout rhetoric in praise of small government but, in the same breath, will promise not to curtail regulation or curb the intake government revenue. This is someone who believes, remarkably, in increased military spending and whose

Foreign relationships

Jennifer Ince Senior

Illegal immigrants, they steal all our jobs, and it grinds my gears, man.

Nick McDonald Junior

Healthcare

George Omegba Senior

views on marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose could hardly be called anything except for primitive.

Neither of these men truly deserves the office of the presidency.

But I believe there is someone who does. His name is Gary Johnson, and he’s the Libertarian Party candidate for president with a name on ballots across the nation.

To provide some background, Gary Johnson is a former two-term governor of New Mexico, where he vetoed a record amount of bills and oversaw the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history. He managed to reduce the size of his state’s government by 10 percent and did this all while being able to leave his state with a one billion dollar surplus by the time he left office.

Governor Johnson, as a candidate for president, campaigns under a simple and rather elegant motto: Live Free. Self described as “fiscally responsible, socially acceptable,” Johnson is an ardent supporter of free market capitalism who, in my assessment, is the only current presidential candidate that possesses an even marginally acceptable view on the proper role of government.

Johnson understands that government has absolutely no place in your private lives.

He believes, and campaigns on these beliefs, in the legalization of marijuana, in a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her body and in total marriage equality for all. He supports a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, believes powerfully in habeas corpus and campaigns for an end to government sanctioned torture.

On foreign policy, Johnson wants to cut military spending 43 percent, end our overseas engagements and bring our troops home. Unlike the two-party candidates, Gary Johnson campaigns on a platform for peace.

So if you believe, as Governor Johnson does, that government intervention both domestic and foreign is out of control and that individual rights are the foundation of a free society, then I urge you to think about your choice come November. I urge you not to vote for who you think to be the lesser of two evils but instead choose to vote for the one man running who deserves to win.

Perhaps if we do that, something like real change may actually come to pass.

Where are all the elephants?

Intern Column

Ethan Krohn Junior

19

Maddie Smith With the imminent 2012 presidential election, it is difficult not to be aware of partisanship amongst the students.

While Trinity University boasts very high amounts of diversity in nearly all areas, it lacks one key component to creating a high variety of students on campus: Republicans.

It is a well known notion that colleges and college-aged students lean toward the left, but it is possible that these biases are affecting the students’ ability to think critically and understand new perspectives.

One possible reason for the lack of conservatism is that there is hardly any Republican activity on campus.

The problem may not be an actual lack of Republicans in numbers, but the small amount of people who attend Trinity.

Organizations may arise out of common beliefs, but they would face low attendance, which would lead to lack of participation and results.

“Since the 2008 presidential election, the Republican group on

campus has died out,” said David Crockett, associate professor of political science, “Part of the problem is that we have small size. The leftist- center group on campus has done a better job of staying active.”

The lack of activity is also being made known to various students.

“I feel like there should be more involvement with the Republicans on campus,” said first year Alexis Maiella, who identifies herself as a Republican.

“What the Republicans on campus need to do is articulate a conservative philosophy, rather than a partisan one,” Crockett said.

However, the bias may not be stemming from the students.

In 1999, the University of Toronto did a survey of 1,643 full time faculty members in 183 four year schools. They found that 72 percent of professors identify themselves as liberal, 13 percent as moderate, and 15 percent as conservative.

“I think the university, by and large, has a more liberalizing influence on its students,” Crockett said, “How professors select readings and structure courses and what topics they choose to explore and choose to ignore will, in some way, be influenced by their perspective.”

It is questionable, however, whether or not this influence on students actually changes their opinions on something as imbedded as partisanship.

“In my classes, when we have discussions, I feel like there are a lot more liberal views than conservative ones,” Maiella said. “But I don’t really feel repressed for being a Republican.”

“You’re influenced by the sources around you and that’s what you learn and you model your behavior and incorporate things from your environment,” said Harry Wallace, associate professor of psychology. “If you’re being exposed to ideas from one ideology or another, it would make sense that you begin to internalize those things, whether you recognize them or not.”

College may be becoming a somewhat static environment, but it is important to see it as an opportunity to think critically and learn about new perspectives.

“The university environment should be a place where one can freely explore ideas, search for truth and, therefore be able to have ideas and have honest, fact based discussions, arguments and discourses about important issues,” Crockett said.

Politics

Oct.26.2012 20 theTrinitonian

The Beginner’s The five greatest U.S. presidents ...

Guide to Absentee Voting

... on television

Intern Column Chandler Grace At this time of the year, everyone is telling you how to vote. Vote Romney! Vote Obama! It gets exhausting.

Well, I’m about to tell you how to vote in the physical sense.

Many of us aren’t registered to vote in Bexar County, so what do we do? Are we not allowed to vote anymore?

You are, it just takes a bit more effort than going down to HEB. Absentee voting is a relatively simple task once you get the hang of it, but for the first timers, here are the basic steps: • Apply for your absentee, or “early by-mail”, ballot – Close of business October 30 • Receive ballot • Vote and return to your County Clerk. by 7 PM November 6.

Sound simple enough?

There’s a catch, though. Your application for the ballot is due by close of business on Oct 30. That’s Tuesday, folks! By mail, fax, or you can hand it to them yourself, but Tuesday is it, and after that, sorry for you.

For the fax number, go to your County Clerk’s or the Election Department’s website and print and fill out the form and then fax it in.

A few days following that, you will receive your ballot, if you are approved for voting.

So be checking your mailbox.

You won’t want to miss that letter.

Now, you have your ballot, you’re read up on all of the candidates and feel confident about making a decision. Well then put that pen to the paper and follow the instructions.

Feeling good about your decision? Good. But there’s one more step before you can put it in the mail and send it off again.

Is it your first time voting in Texas? Did you put your Driver’s license / State ID number on your voter registration card? If so, then you’re golden and you can send your ballot off. If not, then you need to send a copy of said ID in with your ballot.

As long as it gets to your County Clerk by 7 PM on November 6th, then you’re done. Congratulations! You’re good for another year.

Now, for our foreign friends not from the Lone Star State, you might still have time. It all depends on the state. Check with your state specifically because each one has different rules.

Now, go forth and vote!

With this fall’s election quickly approaching and the burden of picking a candidate to vote for mounting upon me steadily, I found myself wishing I had more choices. As a someone who obsessives over pop culture and media I started to wonder if a better candidate existed in the fictional world better than those I was stuck deciding between. In my search for a better candidate I found the five below:

by Dom Dimnick, A&E Reporter President Josiah Bartlet Martin Sheen – “The West Wing” Martin Sheen’s President Bartlet has been hailed the greatest imaginary President by many a media critic and actual politician alike.

Even though he was portrayed as incredibly left leaning, championing liberal viewpoints on issues such as Gun Control, Social Security and Education, Bartlet was also show constantly to make the difficult but “right” choice to reach across the isle when it meant the best results for the country. Even on issues of national security and foreign policy, the once economics professor and seminary student would choose to approve military force that would make the most right wing conservative proud, if he felt it was the right choice. Although never having to deal with an issue that wasn’t pre-orchestrated by the shows writers, or couldn’t be solved by quoting long passages of Sophocles or an Apostle, President Bartlet is to many the candidate we wish we could vote for this fall.

President James Marshal – Harrison Ford – “Air Force One” Encapsulating fully the one aspect Sheen’s intellectual President artlet doesn’t is Harrison Ford’s President James Marshal. Whereas Bartlet was the thinking President, Ford’s Marshal is the President of action. Essentially “John McClane with secret service” President Marshal refused to negotiate with terrorist, but in “Air Force One” proved he was more than willingly to engage them physically rather than verbally. If only a President in real life could have a sound bite as powerful as “Get off my plane!” accompanied with footage of the same commander in chief kicking a terrorist off of Air Force One, their reelection would be guaranteed.

President David Palmer – Dennis Haysbert – “24” Best known now for inquiring “Are you in good hands?” in Allstate Insurance commercials, Haysbert’s President Palmer tried to keep the American people in “good hands” for the first five season’s of Fox’s action thriller “24.” Although initially an antagonist to Jack Bauer’s “Shoot first, Ask Questions Later” style of saving our country in a limited

time-frame and thus the viewer’s enjoyment of the show, eventually a bond fosters between the two and viewers came to respect President Palmer’s dedication to protecting American lives. Palmer’s presidency contained an incredible number of terrorist incidents to deal with, but most Americans I would hope yearn for a President that could make the tough decisions as gracefully as he could

President Laura Roslin – Mary McDonnel – “Battlestar Galactica” Maybe a stretch as she served as “President of the Twelve Colonies” and not these United States, but she was a President just the same and an extraordinary one at that. Elected as Secretary of Education, Roslin is thrust into the position of President of an entire planet in an incredible test for “chain of command” legislation as every cabinet positions above her are killed in a mass evacuation of the planet of Kobol. Much like President Bartlet, her background in education compelled her to lead through intellect rather than intimidation even in a reality dominated by military protocol and command. Although we judge presidents in terms of unemployment and deficit, she was judged by the remaining survivors of an entire race and did so with a grace and grit that both candidates could learn from.

President Hathaway – Stephen Colbert – “Monsters vs. Aliens” Sometimes the President we want may not be the President we need, and sometimes we want the one that makes us laugh the hardest.

Voiced by Stephen Colbert in the DreamWorks film “Monsters vs.

Aliens” President Hathaway is a gross but hilarious portraiture of all the worst but seemingly patriotic qualities that could ever be exhibited by the head of the executive branch. That being said Hathaway makes the list in spite of these facts for firing a pistol at an alien invader while yelling “Eat Lead Alien Robot.” Unfortunately the alien does “eat lead” and scarfs down the bullets while President Hathaway is whisked away into Marine One by his Secret Service team. If any candidate could be that irrelevantly confident while making me laugh that hard, he or she would secure my vote for sure.

The case for political propoganda

need propaganda, and so do we. Good propaganda is the life-blood of an open society.

One can recognize the Guest positive value of propaganda Column without becoming an apologist for contemporary discourse.

We Aaron Delwiche political need not settle for so-called debates in which candidates It's that time of year again. substitute stump speeches From billboards and lawn and zingers for substantive arguments. We should hold signs to bumper stickers and our politicians to a higher pop-up ads, we are relentlessly standard, demanding only the assaulted by propaganda. very best propaganda from Isn't it wonderful? those who woo our votes.

This is not sarcasm. We This is not Swiftian satire. should be flattered that There is such a thing as good politicians are interested propaganda. in what we think and how Propaganda practitioners we behave on Election Day. always have a certain goal in The tidal wave of political mind. As a form of authentic commercials is a refreshing communication, propaganda reminder that we live in a is not nearly as meaningful as functioning democracy. heartfelt conversations that Totalitarian states govern unfold between lovers and by force. Repressive regimes friends. Yet, it is an invaluable do not care nearly as much tool for exchanging ideas about popular consent. between the billions of human Yet, in America – and in beings who share this planet. other democratic nations – Good propaganda should political legitimacy rests on do several things: It should be the consent of the governed. reasonably honest, it should This is not a Republican thing avoid dehumanizing groups or a Democratic thing. It's a of people, and it should avoid democracy thing. the use of name-calling words.

Yes, this is a platitude. As The suggestion that platitudes go, it's one of the propaganda can be best. reasonably honest might Mainstream political parties be shocking to those who and social movements on all remember Goebbels' "Big sides of the spectrum need to Lie" and the horrors of Nazi persuade us that we should propaganda. Yet, dishonesty is support their proposals. They not an intrinsic characteristic

of all propaganda. Skilled propagandists stick to the truth – or a plausible version of the truth – as much as possible. Credibility is very difficult to recover after one has been caught lying.

Good propaganda does not demonize or disenfranchise entire groups of people.

Propaganda campaigns that portray "the enemy" as savage and subhuman are never justifiable. Similarly, the "voter fraud" intimidation billboards in Ohio and Wisconsin should appall us all – Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike – because they are a blatant attempt to discourage low-income voters from turning out on Election Day. Good propaganda also avoids the use of name-calling words. Earlier this week, the conservative political pundit Ann Coulter referred to President Obama as a "retard." A few years ago, the liberal commentator Keith Olbermann devoted a daily segment to shaming "the worst people in the world."

Propagandists hope that name-calling words will undermine rational reflection while fanning anxieties and fears in the depths of our unconscious mind. Sometimes these words are effective; sometimes we are able to see through them. But namecalling words always get in the way of reasonable discussion.

Look, folks.

President Obama is not a socialist. It is laughable name-calling to suggest that he is. We're talking about a man who convinced private investors to help bail out the banking industry. We're talking about a man who, despite occasional lapses into protectionism, is a forceful advocate of free trade. These are not the sorts of things that socialists do.

Contrary to what some on the left have suggested, Governor Romney is not a fascist. It is laughable namecalling to suggest that he is.

This is a man who sings the praises of global capitalism; he is not an authoritarian and he has not expressed the sort of anti-intellectual nationalism that characterizes fascism.

We are ten days away from an important election.

I sincerely hope that you will vote on Election Day; I secretly hope that my candidate will win. But – even if you are voting for the other guy – I suspect that we can agree on at least one thing.

It is better to be governed by persuasion than by force.

If propagandistic campaign commercials are the necessary price for living in a democratic society, "bring 'em on." Just make them good.

Aaron Delwiche is a professor in the department of communication.