With the 2012 presidential election quickly approaching, it is, more and more, beginning to feel like choosing between the lesser of two evils. Both parties are funded and equally so influenced by interest groups. With presidential and other political candidates relying more and more on funding from interest groups, they are becoming more and more desperate to please them, and when a politician has to choose between creating a policy that will help their re-election, or choosing a policy that will please the people. Pleasing the people and helping yourself become re-elected may at first sound similar, What at this point, it really comes down to is, will my policy in favor of the people get them to the polls, or am I better off with campaign funding to sway already active participants in the political process? This is one of many problems with our current political system, but it may not be the most prominent. Considering the upcoming election, we all know both parties have their problems. Sure the democrats have their problematic politicians but, to me at least, the republican party is currently much more problematic.
The republican party has become filled with ideological (more often than not religious also) lunatics. Sure each party has had it's questionable candidates and officers in the past, but recently it seems the republicans have opened the floodgates on idiocy. Just recently, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Christine O'Donnell have emerged into the republican spotlight. Each with gaping flaws in their campaign (which I will go through) which has made me question their status as individuals ready to represent a diverse population.
In the 2008 Presidential elections, Sarah Palin was named the vice presidential running mate to John McCain. We've all seen politicians have simple verbal slip-ups, which I will avoid and focus on her real policy making opinion problems. Firstly, Sarah Palin, apparently sees genetic research as a waste of money. Of course she didn't just say that, but she did it in a more round-about, self-contradictory way. In 2008, in one of her first policy speeches, she pushed individuals and lawmakers to support the IDEA, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In endorsing the IDEA, she specifically mentioned how she hoped to help children with autism.
"For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference."
Now she gave a good reason to endorse IDEA, but the problem became obvious when she mentioned how she'd hoped to fund it. She hoped to transfer funds away from what seemed like, ridiculous earmarks such as fruit fly research.
"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? [...] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."
Of course Palin was oblivious to the fact that fruit fly research has led to great progress in the field of genetics, such as increasing our understanding of cancer, depression, and apparently not known to Sarah Palin, Autism.
"Now scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for these nerve cell connections to form and function correctly. The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism."
So here's Sarah Palin endorsing the IDEA, to help children with autism, stating that early identification of such a disease can make a life changing difference, while simultaneously hoping to cut funds on said autism research.
Moving onto Rick Perry, a more recent republican face. He recently released a campaign ad which caused him to receive a lot of flack, and deservedly so.
The sad part about this ad is that I can't tell if Rick Perry is just shamelessly trying to appeal to conservative Christians or is seriously uninformed. In the campaign ad, Rick Perry says
".....there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. "
Firstly, he doesn't provide any reason homosexuals should not be able to serve openly in the military, whereas any straight male or female has the liberty to be fully open about their sexual orientation. Then he claims children cannot pray in school, which is simply false, only that an authority figure in the school may not endorse a certain religion by leading prayer. Then he stirs up the classic imagined war on religion in America. Christians are being so discriminated against in America, their churches are tax-exempt. According to Jon Stewart
"Government hates religious organizations so much that it lets them keep $100 billion a year in offerings tax-free"
Later in the same episode, he perfectly sums up the misconception of a government war on religion.
“You’ve confused a ‘war on your religion’ with not always getting everything you want."
Moving onto Rick Santorum. Just this previous weekend, the 18th-19th, Rick Santorum said at a speaking event that liberals were anti-science for refusing to use the earth's resources to the full extent of our technology, or essentially not drilling for oil in the United States. It's disturbingly ironic that Rick Santorum can call anyone "anti-science". Rick Santorum, the same Rick Santorum who pushed for Intelligent Design (which has been ruled in Hattiesburg, PA as “ a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”) to be taught alongside evolution.
In an interview with the associated press, Rick Santorum said this when asked by the associated press "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?"
".......if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution........ That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. "
Rick Santorum, arguably the current front-runner for the republican nomination has been found guilty of using fallacious slippery slope arguments in the past on gay marriage (At A New Hampshire Speaking Event Santorum said “So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?”) but here he goes so far as to use the slippery slope on the right to privacy saying it grants you the right to whatever you want. This is obviously false, the right to privacy would never allow things such as multiple homicides. It is obvious to anyone this is Rick Santorum's attempt to place his religion into public law.
So is the republican party becoming increasingly anti-intellectual? It would appear so with the recent amount of candidates emerging with enormous popularity such as Santorum, Perry, and Palin, as well as others that I did not cover like Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell. Although I do not know enough about economic or foreign policy to commentate on their stances in such areas, it seems obvious that republicans on social issues are unable to clear their emotions from the subjects and think logically, or just wish for their religion to become immersed in public policy.
Works Cited
Associated, Press. "Santorum Interview with AP." USA Today. Gannett, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm>.
Boyle, Alan. "Judge Rules against ‘intelligent Design’." MSNBC.com. MSNBC/Associated Press, 20 Dec. 2005. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.T0MWZfEgf_M>.
Brance, Glenn. "Farewell to the Santorum Amendment? | NCSE." NCSE. National Center for Science Education, 5 Jan. 2002. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://ncse.com/rncse/22/1-2/farewell-to-santorum-amendment>.
Cass, Connie, and Jennifer Agiesta. "Rick Santorum Contraception Stance Remains Out Of Step With Nation." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-social-issues_n_1284176.html>.
Edwards, David. "Santorum: Liberals ‘are the Anti-science Ones’ | The Raw Story." The Raw Story. 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/santorum-liberals-are-the-anti-science-ones/>.
Mitchum, Robert. "Fruit Flies' Genetic Wealth Has Scientists Abuzz." PhysOrg.com. 08 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.physorg.com/news155751263.html>.
Science, Daily. "Specific Brain Protein Required For Nerve Cell Connections To Form And Function." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 05 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905123832.htm>.
Walshe, Shushannah. "Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event." ABC News. ABC News Network, 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rick-santorum-gets-booed-after-heated-back-and-forth-on-same-sex-marriage-at-new-hampshire-college-event/>.
Wing, Nick. "Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment