It was announced today that Illinois Governor Blagojevich was arrested by the FBI. Before the Republicans start getting excited about this development, let’s also note that Gov. Blagojecvich’s Republican predecessor is currently serving in Federal prison after being convicted of corruption charges.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Green Party gubernatorial candidate got 10% of the vote in the 2006 election.

Of course, Illinois is simply an example. It seems that people everywhere are pretty unhappy with the two-party system. As of June 2007, the Democrats in Congress had a 36% approval rating and the Republicans had a 30% approval rating. While many often argue that Congressional approval is always low, that fact may give us reason to pause and reflect that, perhaps, the low Congressional approval is a reflection of a lack of satisfaction with the two-party system.

Read the rest of this entry »

In one of my previous posts, I asserted that professors and the highly-educated were liberal because progressive ideas were inherently better, and vice-versa. Clearly, as some have pointed out, this is, to a degree, complete nonsense for a variety of reasons. In fact, one of the problems I should point out with the studies that I cited is that they do not distinguish between social liberalism and economic liberalism. I would venture to say that, while many Columbia students are fairly economically liberal (that is, they believe in economic regulation, the New Deal, and so on to varying degrees), you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find a Huckabee supporter.

Anyway, it’s time for an actual explanation of why professors are so liberal, part one.

The Republican-Democratic divide requires a closer look.

Columbia University statistics professor Andrew Gelman wrote an article (which he later turned into a book) in which he addresses this issue. He writes that:

income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America.” In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference.

In other words, wealthy people in blue states are likely to vote Democratic while their counterparts in Republican states are likely to vote Republican. The explanation for this is that:

Read the rest of this entry »

[The discussion on ROTC continues as Noah Baron responds to Learned Foote's op-ed in yesterday's Spec]

Long before my letters of acceptance and rejection from universities trickled in, I was sitting in a cafe with my Columbia interviewer—who, herself, had graduated not long ago. She had been a political science major—the same major which I then—and now—intended to pursue. Throughout the interview, one of the most salient features of my life had been my wide-ranging political activism. Not surprisingly, she asked me about it.

Before the interview, I had prepared answers to a wide variety of questions—such as “Why Columbia?” or “How come the Core is so very, very awesome?”—but I suppose this one had not crossed my mind. As I thought about it in the few moments of not-quite-awkward silence that ensued, I realized something.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hope you’re as excited for tonight’s debate as I am. To add a little spice to the debate, follow the rules below, compiled with a little help from MIT’s The Tech. Please comment below if you have further suggestions!

Drink When Palin:
Says “Thanks but no thanks.”
Says “it’s my understanding”
Refers to the proximity between Russia and Alaska
Says the word “maverick”
Blinks! (drink 3 times)
Says “small town”
Calls herself a hockey mom
Implies that being the mayor of a small town better qualifies her for vice-president than community organizing
Says “crisis mode”
Says “second-guess” (two drinks if it is in reference to a pre-existing foreign policy, three drinks if it’s Israel)
Says “ya” instead of “you”
Is able to name a Supreme Court case that isn’t Rove v. Wade—2 drinks
Refers to choosing life, or making a decision to keep a child
Compares herself to Geraldine Ferraro (2 drinks)
Compares herself to Hillary Clinton (3 drinks)

If Joe Biden says, “Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. Governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton,” take five drinks.
Read the rest of this entry »

Gotta disagree with Dov on a couple of things. The night was not as bad as we thought it would be–and while the candidates’ affability was clearly fake, it was also a refreshing break from the utterly meaningless “lipstick on a pig“-gate and the only slightly less meaningless “Obama supported sex education for Kindergartners“-gate. Perhaps the greatest measure of this event’s success was the fact that there was absolutely no mention of it on RPC the next day. It deviated from the narrative of the election–which is a good thing, given the nature of that narrative over the past few days.

Having said that, I think Dov was dead-on in suggesting that the forum didn’t do Obama any favors. My hastily-written coda to last night’s liveblog (which appeared in the print edition of the Spec) described Obama’s performance as “exceptionally strong,” but in retrospect my reaction had more to do with my low expectations for the candidates than it did with Obama’s ability to regurgitate a pretty standard, Clintonite line on the importance of “national service.” Even a brief deviation from politics as usual was enough to make both candidates look dazzling, even though their ever-so-momentary flirtation with civility and idealism hardly registered as a blip on the political radar screen. In fact, things seem to be getting worse.

So yes, event failed. It was exploitative, self-righteous, insincere, and insignificant. I still think Obama won the night, though…

Bitter after receiving no McBama tickets, Spectator’s editorial complains about pee-wee student clubs being thrown out of Lerner in favor of ServiceNation’s Presidential Forum. Little do they know that even kicking out Médecins Sans Frontières is justified by a little thing called public interest.

Speaking of public interest, I think we should all be aware that a certain Barnard sophomore is just sick and tired of being categorized as a result of being a “George Bush-loving, quail-hunting, foie gras-eating, minority-hating” Republican.

Meanwhile, freshmen are starting to make their way onto the publication with a surprisingly refreshing reflection on some of the oh-too-familiar changes instated at Columbia University.

That’s how John Nance Garner once described the Vice Presidency. Yet, somehow one of the most beloved games the media plays every four years is a mixture between 1) guess the nominees’ respective choices for VP and 2) think up pie-in-the-sky dream teams that are “unbeatable.” And to be honest, I don’t blame them: this is their version of the NCAA Tournament bracket. That being said, I’ll throw in my two cents anyway.

The truly amazing part of this whole process is that despite election after election to the contrary, people continue to believe that the magic to winning is in finding the perfect running mate. Ginia posted an interesting pro/con look at four pols being mentioned as potential running mates. I’d like to take a slightly different look at the same issue. Specifically, the ways in which a VP can and cannot boost the ticket.

Myth: A strategically chosen veep can deliver a home state or a region of the country.

People love to cite the 1960 election in which LBJ allegedly “delivered Texas.” Even if we grant this example—and it certainly is a disputed claim—it’s just about the only example. First, the only close elections have been in 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004. Mondale in ’76 may have swung Minnesota, but Carter’s victory was decisive there. Gore may have helped in Tennessee in 1992, but Clinton beat Bush comfortably. Did Cabot Lodge help Nixon in ‘60? What about Bentsen’s boost to Dukakis in Texas in ’88? How did Edwards do in NC in 2004? A veep will very rarely swing an election by helping in a home state, let alone in an entire region.

Fact: A vice presidential candidate’s policy agenda is virtually unknown to the country and thus inconsequential in the election.

Quick, name a policy proposal advocated by Spiro Agnew? Edmund Muskie? Lloyd Bentsen? Dan Quayle? Exactly. People want to know what the President will do if elected, and they want to be confident that in the case of tragedy, the veep won’t screw it up.

A running mate CAN help compensate for perceived weaknesses in the Presidential candidate. Most people focus on the top of the ticket and the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. A well known veep candidate with some generally acknowledged strengths can compensate well for a candidate’s weaknesses.

So what are Obama’s weaknesses? Well he’s the first candidate since 1960 to be unseasoned both in governmental management (i.e. no gubernatorial experience) AND in foreign policy chops (i.e. first term senator). But Obama’s main strength is that people perceive him as less partisan than most politicians and also as a uniter. With that in mind, here are a few names Ginia did not mention who should be considered:

Mark Warner – Sure, he’s running for (and likely to win) a Virginia Senate seat currently held by retiring Republican John Warner (no relation). But he also was an exceptionally popular governor who passed a necessary tax increase through a heavily Republican state legislature. Warner reasoned and compromised with lawmakers to create a bipartisan bill. If that doesn’t fit Obama’s alleged message of “change” than I don’t know what does. Problems: aforementioned Senate seat; a wife who hates the limelight.

Ted Strickland – Extremely popular Governor of Ohio. From Appalachia, and very comfortable talking about, and backing up talk of, family values and religion. A progressive who appeals to heartland moderates and liberal Republicans. Problems: Short on experience, and only two years into the governorship. Would it be prudent to jump to the national stage so soon especially with another green candidate?

Kathleen Sebelius – Popular Governor of Kansas, in the middle of her second term, and long on managerial experience; she appeals to constituents despite being decidedly and openly pro-choice. She must be doing something right. Problems: I hate identity politics, BUT, a black man running with a woman might just be too much for some Americans to handle at this point.

[Freshman Noah Baron argues that the progressive path to victory might need to take a detour through your local megachurch...]

This realization came a few years ago, when I looked at the cover of one of the many progressive magazines to which my parents had subscribed–this one was called UTNE. On its cover there was a picture of some random guy I’d neither seen nor heard of, but the title caught my attention, so I opened the magazine and read about a Christian fundamentalist who had consciously (as in not by some freak accident) voted for the Green Party in 2000 (and he’ll have another chance to vote for Nader this year as well).

I was fascinated. Why would a Christian fundamentalist–a man from a group of people known for their rabid opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and anything to the left of George Wallace–vote for Ralph Nader, who’s about as electable as this guy?! The surprising answer: he thought that maybe Jesus would care more about things like global warming, or millions of starving children than, say, who’s sexing whom where and with what.

Read the rest of this entry »

I ran into one of my beloved elementary school teachers over break, and she told me that the school has implemented block scheduling, including 2 hour classes for second graders. As one who finds the 110 minute CC seminars way too long, I was rather horrified. My brothers and I escaped from public education for high school to New England boarding schools. After our great experience in elementary school, the quality of education kept going downhill until we couldn’t stand it anymore. From what I understand, we were there for the glory days of Chester Elementary.

Connecticut’s fantastic Republican (surprise!) governor, Jodi Rell, took a big–and rather unpopular–step when she introduced legislation to make a chunk of public education funding statewide rather than district by district and municipality by municipality. It’s a good first step.

But if we really want to improve public education, we need to bring funding to the federal level. If we don’t, we will continue to aggravate the class gaps in our country: kids who live in Fairfield will continue to get the rich, over-entitled education of which Hartford kids can only dream, to use an example from my home state.

In the mean time, private schools are getting richer and richer. I’m thrilled that my alma mater has recently become need blind so it can admit more and more smart kids from poor families. But, really, those kids should be able to get an adequate education at home.

There are other steps we need to take to improve public education, like incentives for exemplary teachers. I only hope that this issue becomes one that gets real coverage in this election.

[And it might--Obama apparently supports pay-for-performance reforms, an idea that's less popular within the liberal mainstream than you'd think. -Ed.]

All of the neo-cons have been marked as bigoted, racist, anti-Islamist hooligans by all Barack supporters for referring to the black contender as “B. Hussein Obama.” People have asked, “Why not use his full name?” “What political angle are you getting at?”

Hopefully this will put all of that bellyachin’ to rest. For it was B. Hussein himself who started the middle name campaign.

Sometime before Barack Obama’s middle name slipped into the realm of the unmentionable, it was supposed to be a selling point of his candidacy. “Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush,” Mr. Obama told PBS’s Tavis Smiley on October 18, 2007. “If you believe that we’ve got to heal America and we’ve got to repair our standing in the world, then I think my supporters believe that I am the messenger who can deliver that message.”

So there you have it, folks, the self-proclaimed “messenger” started using his middle name to distinguish himself from George W. Bush, whose middle name is Walker, as in Walker, Texas Ranger. (Coincidence? I think not.)

Obama’s campaign managers, I suppose, wanted him to seem diverse, unlike the cowboy who now occupies the White House. OK. Congratulations, it worked. But doesn’t that mean that we can refer to the “diversified” candidate as “B. Hussein Obama,” too? If liberals use the term, they’re being supportive. But if conservatives say it, we’re racists? It’s his name.

I could understand if people got upset if I started calling him “Hoseyjaberwalkie,” but Barack’s name is not B. Hoseyjaberwalkie Obama. And with the Wall Street Journal unveiling the origins of “B. Hussein,” I think we’ve now all earned the right to refer to the “message delivery boy” as anything that he has called himself, without all of the incessant liberal squabbling.