The Importance of Politics

     Nowadays more than ever, it is imperative that people finally understand the huge repercussions that politics has on society. Although one might think that many are aware of the importance of politics, such awareness is not shown in society. People often remark that they do not care about politics and that it is all lies. What they appear to fail to understand is that politics determines their lives and the course of the world. Of course they can change it and contribute in some way as has been demonstrated time and time again by history when otherwise obscure individuals gained power and changed the world forever. Thus it is not a valid excuse to not pay attention to what is happening, as it always impacts their lives, direct or indirect. Even scientists dismiss politics as a false science, calling political scientists fakes. But doing so achieves nothing and is extremely narcissistic. What they do not seem to realize is that a large chunk of funding comes from the very function of politics and government. Instead of criticizing the field, they can instead offer more systematically sound models and actually care about what is going on in the world of the average person. By acting superior to others, scientists perpetuate the image that they believe themselves better than others and that they are highly conceited, disconnected from the plight of the common individual. Although it is almost indisputable that politics and government plot the course for the rest of the world, scientists instead seem to choose to follow the model of secluding themselves from the world while instead focusing on trying to measure empirical data. It is true that such actions are noble and help humanity in theory, but things such as climate change or population change cannot be communicated to the people by some distant numbers and calculations. After all, it is because of the people that any real change happens and not because of the scientists. Likewise, the general public needs to understand that it has a responsibility to understand what is going on in the world, a task that the government most likely has to play an active role in in order to ascertain any real change. Politics should not be seen as a thing to be joked about by either citizens or scientists, and should instead be embraced so that society can come together to achieve great things as a historical first.

The Urgent Need for Reform in Government Policy-Making

     Clearly, government policy-making is a complicated and critical aspect of a resident's lives, obvious in every facet of day-to-day activities. As such, it is strange that many people today have no sufficient idea of the intricate workings of the very institutions that so profoundly affect them. Despite a required course in government for most, it is an undeniable and widespread understanding that the majority of the populace knows virtually nothing about how the system works. Every year, dozens of bills are proposed, often going into the thousands of pages detailing extremely technical stipulations and rules. Not even considering the common man, the very representatives whose job it is to read the bills often do not bother reading such frequent and extensive documents. The initial failure of Obamacare is likely the result of such overly complex and and monotonous wording, confounding the constituency and directing criticism to the Obama administration's bureaucratic breakdown. In fact, it appears that the president himself does not completely understand his own namesake bill, thus explaining the number of erroneous statements made. When the leader of a country and the entire staff of the functioning government so resolutely fail, the event speaks volumes to the current state in policy-making. Such a monumental failure cannot be allocated to just one individual, Republican or Democrat. Speaker John Boehner has been likewise derelict in his duties, not even considering a strongly needed Immigrant reform bill, almost certainly due to its similar incredible length. Rather, the government as a whole should work to reform current procedures in writing laws so that, the general public notwithstanding, at least the representatives can understand the legislation being proposed. In this unilateral effort, both parties will benefit and the people will at least be able to get an accurate explanation from their elected representatives, thereby partially solving the incredibly bureaucratic web that pervades all political parties.

The Determination of Government Institutions and Their Resulting Repercussions

     In times of war, bureaucracies are often reorganized to more quickly and effectively meet the tremendous demand of action required. Many new, often permanent, agencies are formed that exponentially expand the power and reach of government. Once wars subside and general peace is re-instigated, many new agencies suffer reductions in abilities relative to their war-time states, and some are even removed entirely. Regardless of the exact extant of how much each war affects government policy, it is undeniable that they are critical factors in the determination of how the world in the present is formed. It is strange that such aspects are not more thoroughly explored in traditional class settings, as it appears that emotion often dictates the political climate today. It is true that the theoretical aspects of policy-making are a keystone of government function, but just giving one a generalized syllabus of how a government should function is impractical when one tries to utilize what is learned later on. Instead of truly understanding the wildly fluctuating utilities of which change can be more precisely ascertained, the general citizenry is taught a highly idealistic way to influence government that is disingenuous to the subtlety to the alternating times. Later on, many chastise the public for being ignorant of government functions. When government is a required class for the general public, it clearly is more a problem of the curriculum being taught. After all, it is the duty of government to make sure its constituency is up-to-date on political matters. It is imperative that a democratic government take care of its citizenry as it is where its power and ultimate future is derived from. When events like wars happen, their significance should be plainly articulated to the masses. If an institution from said event is allowed to grow without the informed oversight of the public, as is often the case in modern times, the effects can be disastrous to the viability of an administration. Basically, it is important to institute a more realistic overtone to what is expressed, so that both the government and the people benefit from a collaborative effort that is best for the long-term stability of a democratic state.

The Political Practicality of Compromises

     Bipartite, balanced, bipartisan: such words and phrases constitute the holy grail of  contemporary political speak. The significance of this sort of terminology is obvious,  and is predicated on appealing to the common sense of logic that all human beings share. After all, nobody is conceivably against a joint effort, a compromise. People are conditioned so thoroughly to be satisfied and relaxed at the mere mention of the latter. But, of course, there is a downside to using this sort of externally reassuring language. Evidently, by doing so, the public's sense of what is right and wrong is dulled, as they become increasingly apathetic to the soothing language articulated by the government-and thus, in extension, the media- and lose, or at least temporarily shelve, a vital part of their cognitive and moral conscious. Such a coalescence of morality with government interests is not a healthy state for either by any measure. Now obviously one might remark something to the effect that the government indeed wants people to be, putting it bluntly, dumb and drone-like. However, doing so actually conflicts with government interests in the long-term. As history has shown invariably, as the middle-class grows in wealth and thus power, its development parallels a huge and explosive boom in technology and indeed the general wealth. It is an economical fact that as the wealth of the less privileged increases, so does the wealth of all. Paradoxically, the rate at which the wealth of the upper-classes increased actually slowed over the 1980's to present day when wealth began to disparagingly concentrate more and more in the top socioeconomic bracket. Clearly, a lack of foresight is what holds humanity back; as a collective, it is time to actually strive for such a lofty and yet noble goal for a sustained period of time, meaning not a couple hundred like is the case for virtually all countries and empires, but for a thousand or more years at a time, the periodicity of which should likewise increase exponentially. What a troubling thought it is that despite so many advances in technology and thought human strife has not truly deviated from its primitive roots. Perpetuating the emotional weakness of humans by using such spurious language, preying upon the minds of people to reduce them to self-harming husks, and finally leaving them so confused that they cannot possibly sort out what went wrong is useless. When one makes a compromise, the terms have to be, by definition, fair. Shifting the debate to one side (the conservative side, as in the case in the U.S. and the majority of other instances) is disingenuous.   Thus, loaded words like compromise should actually embody what they claim to contain. On the other hand, there should likewise not be intent to rally emotion against compromise as a cliché. Instead, people should be helped in the obtaining of knowledge that will better society. Knowledge should not be esoteric but exoteric, and despite the current reign of the information age, clearly such is not the case, at least in terms of what counts most, collective humanity. Political leaders should do away with the notion of compromise if it does not allow sufficient room for the moral high-ground. One can even lean slightly to the side of compromise, as long as the majority of stated belief is not eclipsed. By doing so, a whole lot more political capital can be won over if only the one in power, even if the power was procured through promising fealty to larger forces, and one's name can have a much more practical chance of enshrining the coveted annals of history as a great leader loved by both the middle and lower-classes for outright satisfaction, but also ultimately the upper-classes, as they eternally benefit most as a piece of the pie in terms of overall advancement.

Responsibility in Politics in Relation to Religion

     Religion and politics are nowadays intertwined in America. However, it is not Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other named religion. Rather, it is the orthodoxy and orthopraxy that dominates mainstream beliefs and ideology. Take, for example, the victim-blaming that is widespread. Cases like Steubenville shift responsibility on the person who was victimized to the extent that the victim is punished by being shamed and chastised. Even something as common as prison rape is supported by a significant portion of America as a means of additional punishment for someone who did something bad. What fails to be scrutinized in cases such as these is a gray line. If someone is accused of doing something wrong, they are marginalized in increasingly extreme and callous ways. Similar in principle is religion, which likewise has a black-and-white outlook on life in general and demands that every member adhere to all its intricate nuances. Just like in politics in today's day-and-age, people are resorting more and more to reactionary actions to counterbalance an anomaly that, if treated fairly, would undermine the current hierarchy. So rather than change a popular and accepted belief, the community instead chooses to quickly and quietly silence issues to try and stop any controversy when it is localized. Actions like these were the bases for the Christian crusades, the Hindu caste system, modern-day Islamic extremism, and many other things.
     Both religion and politics therefore levy a fundamentally unfair burden of responsibility on a specific group, usually a minority. For politics, it is the poorer population and/or a racial minority, who are expected to know that politicians can lie at any time like political commentators, their full rights like lawyers, and study like a far more privileged person. All of these expectations are unreasonable and prevent a deeper look at the causation of the problem as well as practical and efficient alternatives instead of 'they should have tried harder as this is America.' Thus the problem is that both religion and politics are misrepresented as being separate when, in fact, they derive their roots from the same basic place, the like-mindedness and homogeneous actions that define the community. Ultimately, a solution to this issue must be developed. Whether it is a more clear separation of religious reactionism from political activism or a more conciliatory reversion to religion will define America. Obviously, a more empathetic stance will lead to a more egalitarian society, or utopia in the contemporary sense.    

Rationalization of Liberalism

     Although a post that defends conservatism might be unexpected given the history on this blog, the point that will hopefully be conveyed is that the writer does not hate conservatism just because it represents traditional values. Indeed, many people, including the writer, would like to back traditional values. For example, it was aforementioned in another blog post that conservatism has a subtle psychological appeal that lends itself to stability and a basic sense of modernism in general. Compare such nomenclature to liberal, which is heavily connoted, especially in today's political environment, with extremism and an underlying sense of wanting chaos. The point is people who choose to outwardly identify as liberal or even progressive (as even though it may sound absurd, progressives are seen as ideologues by many people) are not aliens who are somehow an exception to this tendency. Nor are they mentally insane or damaged or hopelessly different: oftentimes they choose to change ideologies after sustained and careful consideration.
     Yes, the word "change" used deliberately. After all, many people, except for a few whose communication  and belief circles perpetuate liberalism as an ends to a means, do not naturally ascribe to liberalism. Unlike conservatism, there is no consolation of preserving the status quo, no reward in going against traditional societal values as the minority, oftentimes for decades before change is actually enacted.  Now of course that is not to necessarily say that liberals are inherently smarter than conservatives-as they are not-nor is always true that liberalism does not have a calming mental effect on its own- prominently displayed in the cases of more liberally-inclined townships have a greater percentage of liberals. But even taking into account these significant exceptions, many people still are reluctant to flip to the left side of the political spectrum. It is only through extensive ostracization and a consistent estrangement to not consider the other point of view while just responding with the sentiment that "things have always been done this way," the latter being part-and-parcel to the former, that culminates into a slow, deliberate metamorphosis in terms of political ideologies.
     Obviously, most people agree that many things in society should be preserved. But sometimes change is necessary. It is only when a large group of people are disillusioned by stagnate, glaring problems that are not fixed despite a real solution existing that many liberals are formed, at least in the U.S. in today's day-and-age. Consider the fact that many contemporary revolutionaries, including the vast majority of the famed founding fathers, were originally conservative loyalists. But after a long period their grievances not being addressed, they eventually became more radical (radical being a word that is likewise heavily connoted in a negative sense unfairly by today's arguably recalcitrant society) in their beliefs and actions. George Washington himself embodies this fundamental change; he was after all a British military officer serving under General Braddock. The results of George Washington's slow radicalization can be seen today in America with such extreme ideas like liberty and democracy for all to the maximum level, equal chances for the poor through social programs, and an openness to change. Surely many people can agree that the conception of what is now the most powerful nation on Earth, responsible for many good, is a positive thing. Remember that people have to consciously choose change, an ordeal that is informal and uncertain by its very chaotic nature. However, such sentiments are formed because of a lack of modern arbitration between the two extremes. Ultimately, most sane people come around to the points that change is essential to the world, that it is always necessary based on history (and that today's times are no exception as excuses like people being equal everywhere are demonstrably false), and that people who do want societal betterment, God help them, do so with  great regret in their hearts at the prospect of having to isolate themselves with the greater part of society, with has a tendency to be conservative to a fault, to help a group of people that so need assistance to even have a real shot at the American Dream of pulling oneself up from the bootstraps.

Lamentation of Positivsm

     Although the premises that are to be proposed in the remaining post have no direct statistical proof save personal induction, it is still beneficial to express a minority view as long as it can be conceived to be well-reasoned. Thus, the point is that many people nowadays believe that everything will get better with time. A plethora of human beings, many intellectual, ascribe to the notion that society tends to improve as time goes on. Although the case is generally true as a trend of observable history, it is also true that modernity has created a fundamentally different environment than the one a millennium ago or even the one a century ago. Better weaponry and transportation ensures a quick and efficient response to any riots or dissent, and even democratic nations generally utilize sophisticated instruments of which to regulate their citizenry and educate themselves to foreign thoughts and innovations. As largely anecdotal evidence of a slowing push for equality, wage disparity has skyrocketed in America since 1980. People have gained less wage hikes in comparison to what was a historically proportional increase to productivity. Many of the same people who advocate an ameliorist way of looking at life also believe that things are not as bad as they seem. But by definition they also believe that things will get better and eventually work themselves out; so a problem arises. The very same group that wishes for society to better itself is largely complacent and relatively conservative in response to modernity. Perhaps the most prominent image that comes to mind is that of sheep, which blissfully believe in the future. Although such an analogy is overused and often placed out of context, in this case the optimists take a Pollyanna position in life and do nothing of note one way or the other. Such an ideology seems fatalistic and too reliant on chance. Indeed, it encourages withdrawal from reality and the future problems that may arise into a more indifferent and laid-back world view. While many proponents of said mindset would argue that their is very little to be done, many are also (probably in an unrelated fashion) religious. Though there is no attack on religion being conducted, it is strange that the very people who have faith in the religion do not practice its basic tenants of doing instead of watching. Surely continuing to have such a mindset of giving in and hoping for the best will take its toll on humanity, if it already has not. In order for people to have a future in which they are connected to reality, a future that is therefore meaningful and satisfactory in retrospect, humans must learn from history and take an active stance in areas like politics and government, tools that can help to express one's individual perspective and doing their part to further a better society instead of mindlessly thinking that humanity will continue to become a utopia despite any force as it sounds reassuring and easy. Just because the past has been favorable does not mean that the future will be so king. It is necessary more than ever to have back-up plans for the practical betterment of civilization.  

The Nomenclature of "Liberal" in the Context of the Psychological Well-being of the American People

     Nowadays liberals are oftentimes bashed by both moderates and conservatives for being too extreme. Perhaps the name lends itself to a more radical overtone; compare its nomenclature to that of "conservative" or "moderate," which sound inherently cautious and well-reasoned. As aforementioned in a previous post, people are more likely to identify as conservative or moderate as opposed to liberal even though many of their subsequent choices fit more into that category. But for such a shallow difference to have such a profound effect on the choices of the American people in general shows just how desperately there needs to be an amelioration of the system, including the public fields of politics, media, and education. Politics is the most obvious: politicians need to stop polling certain words that mean the same thing but have more support due to different societal associations. Tricking up people to vote against there own economic interests is arguably evil, especially when one considers that the representatives are supposed to be public servants that help their constituency as a whole, not a small group of elites. In addition, politics need to be focused less on emotion and more on hard facts. What has no effect statistically on a certain group of people needs to be implemented if another group of people require it for the guaranteeing of their own liberties. Similar to politics, media needs to stop focusing on jingoistic banter and start fact-checking. If one side is clearly and demonstrably wrong, having a history of horrible mistakes, then it is okay to point that out and not treat everything as equal when doing so is fundamentally disingenuous to the American people. In particular, the media needs to stop being so intimately involved with the government and function more as the watchdogs on the side of the American people, something that is actually beneficial to society. Indeed everything has its liberties, but if people can reason giant oversteps of limitations on government regulation of freedom such as the Patriot Act, then surely the people can allow a small concession so that news stations are penalized for straight-up consistent lying. But most important is the reconstruction of the educational system. People have lost faith in their schools and for good reason. Much of the engagement is short-term memorization with very little critical analysis. American society is far too focused on test scores and needs to transition to a more student-friendly hierarchy that actually prepares and engages the student in relevant and interesting source material. Of course not all classes are so redundant, but the fact remains that the majority of the population has internationally sub-par education, especially the South which is unfortunately used as a stepping stone so that a few provincial elites maintain the status quo while the majority of the citizenry suffers relatively medieval conditions. It is unlikely that any of these measures will be implemented in the foreseeable future, though the continued and fervent espousing of actual common-sense reforms is critical to make sure the nation as a whole does not descent into a new paleolithic era.  

The Futility of Reactionary Conservatism

     It is an unchanging axiom that conservatism will never continue for long. At least, not in a relative sense. As far as modern history(the period chosen arbitrarily from Sumer to Canute the Great to  present's creation by the ever-flowing future due to the early establishment of Western ideals) goes, the world has become increasingly conservative. People have continued to integrate new ideas and cultures, even though they invariably opposed such change as dangerous. When England began to take over significant areas of land, it justified itself by stating that the other people were inferior, either due to culture or skin color or often times both. The power that England accrued allowed it to boast that the sun never set upon it. But eventually even the largest empire in human history crumbled: the rights of minorities to autonomous home rule was established, indigenous people adapted to new technology as way to challenge British superiority, and the democratic education that Britain established became the uniting banner for many later revolts and revolutions. Of course, such a trend was global and affected other powerful civilizations as well. Empires crumbled throughout the ages, be they  Egyptian or Chinese. It seems that people of their own home area(or rather the provincial elite) wish to have a majority say in their own lives to the extent that they are willing to consistently murder and conspire. 

     But the preference of autonomy to heteronomy is not an exclusive by-product of modernity. In general, society  tends to have a greater toleration increasingly voluptuous outfits, and the activities associated with them, in proportion to its collective age. As time went on in Greece and Rome, the women came topless to gladiator fights or street parades. Rome was famous for having an incredibly adulterous(a word that is supremely outdated as the majority of people commit this heinous crime) culture, especially prior to their fall. Even American society has drifted from the lofty colonial outfits and dresses to rugged pants and t-shirts. Perhaps the most annoying society in opposition to this theory is Islamic society, which throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing due to its striking regression. But such a change is the exception rather than the rule, temporary, and often times inaccurate in regards to the actual whims of society. Although for a time burkas (Islamic clothes covering every inch of the female body) were traditionally upheld, it could be imagined that they were not particularly favored due to the the more open nature of humanity. Ironically, elaborate designs were embroidered on their surfaces, defeating the whole purpose of drawing less attention. In present times, only a few countries mandate the outfit. Even Iran, descending from the great legacy of Persia and a major Islamic country after the Islamic Revolution, refuses to be controlled by its Islamic culture and engages in parties ending in shocking intimacy and binge drinking. 

     If history is viewed this way, then one might sensibly argue that society needs to be moderate, neither adopting the immorality of the Romans right before their fall or the strictness of Islam which has never been very effective. Evidently, it is assumed that the Romans' promiscuity was somehow a causation for its fall. But the fact that many regions and cultures have adopted their devotion to primal desires, with Western civilization leading the charge, suggests that it is not a bad thing; after all, Europe leads the world in many other good things such as longevity and healthcare. In addition, society needs to be in a continuum, always wanting to evolve and change(often times for more autonomy and individual rights) as time goes on. Such a desire is at odds with reactionary ideology, which vehemently opposes change. Thus, society is both paradoxically more receptive to change as well as less open to it than ever. But their can be no middle path as one cannot hope to reconcile the differences of the other. Both hate each other with intensity and have never historically come to a real compromise in this regard. After all, the world in general has become more frisky and westernized, the Islamic countries included. It seems that the world naturally inclines towards greater freedom, a trend that will probably be hastened thanks to technology connecting more people. Conservatism is adopted as a balancing force for people who believe that society is becoming too heterogeneous, in part due to the generational effect. But such a movement is often times extreme and short-lived. Indeed the Tea Party embodies this, as it is nearly absolute in the insanity department and probably will fizzle down after the nuclear fallout resulting from the failure of conservatives' kamikaze efforts to stop Obamacare failing. Society in the global sense tends to work itself out in such patterns. The best conservatism can do, not considering a new ice age or the like artificially forcing regression on the world,  is to achieve the moral high ground in their actions for once and not just their words. What this means is that it can no longer force people to go a certain way or do crazy things like burn buildings. No, it must be what the progressives were, allowing people the right to choose. Such an action was what made religion so great in the beginning, as people had the choice to join a more unified and principled group. Everyone wants principle, after all. But nobody wants it shoved down their throats. If, even after such a sane measure, society as a whole fails to become more conservative, then so be it. People should have pride in their own beliefs being strong in the face of perceived immorality and be satisfied with their own lives. 

Boehner's True Connection to the Government Shutdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwzEpSJNaLs
     The blog post will comment about the above video interview of John Boehner on "This Week." In particular, the focus will be on Boehner's comments of how he will not negotiate with the Democrats unless they delay Obamacare a year no matter what. Several points are salient in this way of thinking: Boehner's framing of negotiation when his party is the one that has consistently never compromised, the continued assault on Obamacare, and Boehner's feigned powerlessness despite him actually having the power to pass a resolution to end the government shut down.
     Perhaps most insidious is Boehner's continued insistence that he will not negotiate, framing the debate as if his party is the one that is the sensible one. In fact last year Boehner delayed the implementation of Obamacare by suggesting to President Obama that large businesses should not have had to pay for a year. Since big business holds a lot of sway in both the Democratic and Republican parties in present times, the president agreed. Of course, Boehner used the exclusive one-year delay to say that Obama was discriminating against the poorer people, thus winning political capital and stabbing the president in the back again, figuratively speaking. Now the time for the implementation of Obamacare has once again come around, and the Republicans once again insist on a one-year extension. It does not take much imagination to see that the Republicans will never let Obamacare to pass this way, continually asking for the bill to be postponed until the next year. Clearly, the Democrats are the ones with the ludicrous amount of generosity to the point where they go against their ideals, while the Republicans are steadfast in their convictions; it is not hard to see who is the real unreasonable party.
     In tandem with the crazy Republican ideology of to insist on getting everything or start crying foul, the Republicans also fail to see the laws of math. In present day, it is estimated that the Republican GOP has tried, and failed, to repeal Obamacare a record-breaking 44 times, perhaps more, wasting valuable Congressional time and billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. If the first few times did not succeed, it stands to reason that the next 40 will not fare better unless there are sweeping changes to both the Senate and the House, which was clearly not the case. By rallying the base, mostly Tea Party, the Republicans make it seem that the country is on their side when really only a small reactionary wing has a disproportionate amount of influence in the Republican party, the very same party that evidently seems to get its demands met a vast majority of the time. The bill itself will not cost all that much more. It will only add about $230 dollars on average to an American. Although this may seem like a lot, consider the fact that it is often required to have car insurance, which is surely not as essential as health insurance and can meet or exceed this cost, especially when taking into account the tendency to own multiple new cars. Surely if no one has a problem with car insurance, than something like required healthcare for most, a similar application in that the industry it is insuring is in favor of, will be accepted, since it will inevitably save tens of thousands per year.
     Finally, the most striking facet of the argument Boehner makes is his crocodile tears at his situation. In the video, it was obvious that he was very fervent in agreement with the most extreme reaches of his faction, namely the Tea Party. He stated multiple times that he will not negotiate without the discontinuance of Obamacare several times in a very dominant manner. But Boehner's tactics are disingenuous in nature: He can very well end the government shutdown right now; the required votes are already there. Instead, he insists that the majority of the Republican party agree with the terms of any proposed bill, in other words relying on the minority of his own minority party. As House majority leader, he has the power to call a vote in passing a bill, but he is so engrossed in ensuring the radical Tea Party members largely agree that any bill in the past few years has been hugely draconian and one-sided in favor of the ultra-conservative.
     Therefore, it can be concluded that the government shutdown is the fault of John Boehner and his Republican party. No, perhaps that accusation is somewhat unfair. Many of the more moderate establishment Republicans, if moderate is an apt word to describe them, are actually in favor of ending the government shutdown and passing Obamacare. They have the foresight to see that winning the war is impossible. The corporations, despite their opposition to Obamacare, do not want a shutdown at any rate. But Boehner will not enact a vote as he knows that Obamacare will no doubt pass. Just as how the attempt to repeal Obamacare failed 44 times, it will conversely pass the first time if Boehner allows a vote on the issue. Of course, Boehner will not allow this to happen as he has demonstrably strong connections to the insane but influential Tea Party. It is clear that, despite Boehner's continued insistence to the contrary, Obama is not the one with the sole power or responsibility to end the shutdown. In fact, the entirety of the Democratic party is in favor of implementation, a fact reflected in the virtually guaranteed passing of the bill through the Democratically controlled senate and president, who has the bill as his greatest, and perhaps only significantly progressive, achievement and namesake. Boehner is the one who is the one truly responsible for the hold-up. His continued protestation of reality and the power of the Tea Party continues to hurt America every day their ultra-conservative ideas continue to stubbornly allow the shutdown of the government when he can and should heed the call of the people for once.

The Captivation on American People by the Ted Cruz Type

     In today's times, America has become ensnared in the antics of a seemingly fresh and bold junior senator. Almost single-handedly, Ted Cruz rallied the republicans in a seemingly heroic filibuster and was later cited by many of the more conservative GOP congressmen as the reason why they would not compromise without the 45th attempt and actual first success to repeal the 4-year old law. Ted Cruz, new and unorthodox to the political front, seems to personify the radical change that most Americans want. However, the Ted Cruz type is not a new invention but rather a recurring theme most prominently showing up when Americans were most conflicted with their own beliefs. McCarthy comes to mind as perhaps the best and most infamous example. Megalomaniacs such as him often times cited vitriolic and reactionary speech, threw another group of Americans under fire for their own gain, and generally do not have a vision for the future. Instead, they seem to bask in the moment at hand.  Perhaps the most distinguishing feature is that they believe they are doing some kind of ordained task.
     Ted Cruz encompasses this criteria quite well. He claims the Americans are overwhelmingly in support of repealing Obamacare,  going so far as to say that his 21-hour tirade was similar to the time of people against Hitler in his filibuster, later voting for the measure he was filibustering. Ted Cruz's so-called heroic measure helps none but himself, inflating his own image among the republican base at the cost of popular support for the party that now seems crazy and unreasonable nationwide. Indeed, Cruz is trying as hard as possible to stay in the limelight, likely to try and run as president when he is still and enigma and a symbol of hope for at least some of the voter base. The most shocking detail is that apparently Ted Cruz was raised up as the anointed one by his father Rafael Cruz, who supposedly told his son every day that he was special and would lead the American people against a massive threat. Such a lunatic mindset was also displayed by McCarthy, who imprisoned many of his own colleagues and  fellow Americans for his 15 minutes of fame. What is remarkable is the relative and unprecedented frequency of the type, the two of which, despite their huge influence, both gained infamy in the last century. Although this may seem like a large divide, nations who have even one such individual gain power tend to be quite unstable. America had two in a small space of time, which brings to question the state of the American people. In most other westernized countries, such extreme individuals would be rejected as unreasonable by the constituency. Instead, both the American people and the media treat them as darlings and a chance for true change. If America truly is so desperate for change, than the political arena can only become more volatile as time progresses and these feelings are allowed to ferment further.

The Current Condundrum of the Conservative Party

     In today's times, conservatives have shifted so far right that they would reject Ronald Reagan if he campaigned today with his couple-decade old ideologies. Reagan was actually in favor of background checks, something that no republican, tea-party supporter, establishment, or libertarian, would ever be in favor of. Indeed, instead of shifting ever so slightly liberal as the passage of time should do, they have become more reactionary and unchanging as the rest of the world has moved onto the twenty-first century. The party still opposes gay and abortion rights, issues that almost all other first-world countries, even ones with conservative parties in charge, have granted. Even the drug wars, which the majority of the country is against, which costs billions of dollars, which is listed as the causation of the majority of arrests in America's top-ranking prison count, are supported by the supposedly fiscally responsible republicans. The military-industrial complex is so bloated that it is bigger than the next twelve biggest military budgets (including China and Russia) combined. Surely, it is plain that such policies, when looked at with some critical analysis, seem counter-intuitive. What can over-spending and over-regulating accomplish? Especially when republicans complain about an overreaching government when these policies do just that? Evidently, the answer to these questions cannot be synonymous with the general well-being to the country. It seems that all venues to do so leads to more sinister motives. The problems are two-fold: there is an imbalance of power due to the stratification of wealth and its potential influence in the current government, and the subsequent propaganda that cloaks this problem with other trivial concerns. Thanks to Citizens United (an ironic name, as is usually the case with regressive bills nowadays), entities, usually corporations due to their vast wealth, are able to make unlimited political "contributions," or legalized bribes. Such a problem is further complicated by the fact that the average election to run for the house or senate requires millions of dollars just to have a chance, resulting in a dependence on external support. Naturally the corporations, who traditionally donate the most, have the greatest influence. The answer to this problem is plain enough; just repeal the bill, right? Although such a solution is obvious and of no conceivable detriment to any individual, it sorely lacks the attention it so rightly deserves due to heavy propaganda. Perhaps the most glaring and, paradoxically, subtle proof to this statement is the average Joe's insistence that the media is liberal. If this astounding statement were true, then clearly the country would shift left instead of right over time due to its undeniable influence over the citizenry. Gay rights and drug wars would end before they started. Instead, the opposite is demonstrably true. When George Bush called on for war, claiming that his administration had solid proof that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," every single media outlet reiterated this unfounded and highly dangerous sentiment constantly. There is no doubt that had the media not constantly bombarded their watchers with demonstrably false information, the U.S. would not have went to war nearly as quickly, perhaps not even doing so had the actual facts had time to surface. Even if one were to argue that although that it is not the case today, the most recent Syrian crisis disproves such an argument. Even now, when a democrat is in charge, the media went wild with stories insisting the U.S. had to go to war. Although this particular point may be attributed to the democratic party's own rightward shift, the fact that the republican party considers itself more extreme in matters of war makes matters far worse. By doing such ludicrous reporting, the media has shifted the gazes of the public away from more important matters such as education and representation. Even traditionally liberal media outlets support corporations, as is the case with Erin Burnett. The extreme shift to more reactionary methods has been so severe that even notable democrats such as Feinstein have gone so far as to propose legislation that severely limits the First Amendment Rights of practically everyone. Dubbed the Free Flow of Information Act (again ironically so), the law is being presented as a shield law when in fact it actually takes away protections of free speech of everyone that have always existed under the Bill of Rights except salaried journalists, i.e. virtually everyone except the establishment media. Senator Feinstein magnanimously stated that she "is not going to go there," referring to protecting the rights of bloggers and otherwise average people. The bill has passed the senate and is moving on to the house for a vote. Even though some democrats and a few republicans oppose such ridiculous bills that seem to be proposed every other day now, almost all republicans are invariably in favor of them. The republican party has been losing more and more voters since Ronald Reagan, meaning that if it is to survive it has to at least partially shift to a more reasonable and less restrictive, anti-middle and lower-class position on its policies. In the past, such thinking of a mainstream party would have been cast as mere lunacy. But more and more people agree that the government is becoming extraordinarily unresponsive to everyday people, and that it must be more connected to the majority constituency. As the democrats have followed suit to become more conservative, the republicans must become more moderate for the betterment of all of America.

States Versus Federal: a Pattern to Follow

     American history is filled with disputes between the state and federal, between the individual and the collective, starting before and during its founding as was the case of Shay's Rebellion going all the way up to modern times in the marijuana debate. Perhaps the most pressing question in relation to this dynamic unique to America is what is the right choice. The question is not what is lawful or not, as that is already evident: the federal always supersedes the state in terms of the rights of the citizen and influence. What is still ambiguous is when it is considered okay to go against the will of the collective. For example, when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation that was stated to free all the slaves(although the Thirteenth Amendment was the real cause), many of the southern states went into open rebellion and seceded. Through the luxury of historical hindsight, it is universally agreed upon that the South was wrong to do so. Often times, liberals laud the South for going against a federal edict, going so far as to call them traitors(a word that is used too often throughout history), with Southerners being equally preposterous in their continued support for the Confederation and of secession. Although it appears that liberals have a sort of hypocritical streak: they are against secession when it applies to the southern states, but favor the Washington and Colorado initiatives to legalize marijuana. Clearly it seems that they only favor their agenda and are against other viewpoints. Although this point is valid to a large degree the issue, as clarified before, is not the clear subordination of state authority, but when civil disobedience is "correct." For example, it is virtually guaranteed that marijuana will be legalized in the U.S., probably in the next twenty years. As such, history will look back on Washington and Colorado's actions as revolutionary. In contrast, history widely condemns the the southern rebellion. The ultimate distinction between the two lies in the moral high ground, that is to say, one side was in favor of more rights towards a certain group of people. Such a trend has been the case throughout all of -recorded history in general; as time goes on, people tend to see eye-to-eye and abandon "conservative" values in response to modernity, the very same force that the people who are in favor of continuity enjoy. Thus it is clear that the side that favors greater rights, exemplified through precedence, is correct. While this standard may not seem fair, it has ironically held constant. In today's policy-making, a rule as plain as this cannot be ignored.    

LR- Societal Obligations: Responding to the Social Contract Theory Video

     In modern times, the ideologies of Locke have been  the most heavily adopted of the three, in particular the social contract theory. The question to answer, therefore, is when is its implicated actions, be they peaceable protest or downright rebellion, are justifiable and in extension applicable to the 21st century. One way of analyzing such a massive and ambiguous question is examining its claimed uses in U.S. history. Among the first of such rebellions against the fledgling American government was Shay's Rebellion. The event gained steam, as though all farmers had been in high debt due to new farmland applications, the government of Massachusetts was the only state that did not have any pro-debtor measures. For this reason, the farmers revolted in armed protest. Though they were put down quickly by the governor's organized militia, many people disliked the harsh reaction and the event inspired similar, smaller-scale rebellions throughout the country. In contrast, the Whiskey Rebellion was a phenomenon caused by farmers revolting against a whiskey tax that would cut into their profits. The rebellion too had disgruntled farmers fighting against an apparent imposed tyranny. But in this instance George Washington responded quickly with an army numbering in the thousands to utterly crush the crusade. What differentiates the two is not just the manner in which they were crushed and their exact reasons, but also a sort of tacit line that was crossed in the second. When the first rebellion occurred, it was a mostly isolated instance due to a relatively unresponsive government which Washington likely did not feel merited a federal response. Even though he did not support the protest, he might have held some sentiment for its legitimacy. In the second instance, however, the issue was Congress's ability to levy taxes. If some ragtag farmers could challenge the government, than anyone could. Thus Washington responded so decisively and harshly. In doing so, their was a sort of implied difference formed which communicated a leniency for "justifiable" rebellion, in which the constituency did not receive treatment held to be reasonable, versus a forceful assault that meant that no action would be tolerated if the action in question clearly violated the Constitution. True, both were eventually put down violently and both failed, but nonetheless the different responses to the crisis by the federal government showed a strong division from right or wrong. Indeed if the protest was peaceful, perhaps in the form of a petition, the farmers would have no doubt received some compensation for what was deemed a crucial duty. In effect, the social contract in America can be seen as a sort of unstated web of response: if one is constitutionally justified, that is to say in accordance with Locke's suggestion of protest due to an unresponsive government not backed by a constitutional necessity, then it gains traction. Perhaps the most important ingredient is that dissent remain peaceful, especially in present times due to the increased destructive capacity, to gain true legitimacy throughout a country. For if an adamant and comprehensive chorus is raised, a government without fail will respond, likely in a reciprocated mannerism.  

Free Post on Government

     The role of government in the U.S. should be more isolationist than its current form, which seems like it wants to intervene in every conflict that arises in the world. What originally spurred growth in the U.S. prior to the 1920's was a relative adherence to that rule, being truly active only in the west hemispheric portion that was relatively close geographically to the Continental United States. Of coarse they were involved in conflict, but it was close enough to be considered a feasible variable in national security. In addition, the conflicts helped to build up the size and power of the United States as a whole and did not solely appease a specific special interests group, like the annex of Texas. It can certainly be argued that Hawaii was added due to its crops which were profitable to the corporations in that field, but this argument does not consider other implications which set this event aside from the ones that trouble contemporary times. First, and to stress a previous point, Hawaii is quite close to the U.S.A. Thus, it can be seen as a strategic base to directly protect the U.S. as it is advantageous to post soldiers there. One of the common misconceptions that plague most people of the modern age is that people who are against foreign intervention are against any sort of intervention. Although a few individuals might reflect this ideology, most obviously do want the U.S. to focus its efforts on keeping peace. The key difference is that many people do not want to support wars half way around the world for an indefinite period of time with no clear victory or defeat; such a standard tends to decrease morale and hamper the American Spirit which is still valued today. Also, Hawaii had a very pro-American stance just before annexation,  to the point where they more or less asked for it. Its populace had been changed so that a significant amount of well-off Americans inhabited it. Third, it was also good for national trade. Now one might claim that intervention in the middle east is good for oil companies, but again such a point fails to consider the differences. Most oil companies are based in far-off foreign operations as that is where they obtain most of their staple product. The addition of Hawaii directly gave the U.S. a much-needed and otherwise nigh-unobtainable boost to various crops of profit and import. When oil companies receive control over oil, the price rarely goes down at all. In contrast, a conflict in this region tends to shoot the price up. Thus intervention in this region only helps the corporations and actually hurts the general U.S. population as a whole. Most people are indeed for corporations if they can provide the whole of the U.S. with something necessary and ethical. One may say that times have changed, and that the U.S. can never revert back to its isolationist roots. But such thinking is fatalistic and does not adequately address the problems of modernity. As time goes on, most societies become more industrial and as a consequence demand more autonomy. Whether American decides to intervene or not, the world will continue to progress nonetheless. Such believes to intervene anywhere where any lobbying group or rebel faction demands it is not plausible and more of a reflection of the country's rightward shift into Neconservativism. Just over fifty years ago Eisenhower, a Republican president and World War Two general, commented that the U.S. as it was could not hold itself together if it continued to hold so many bases so far away. If such a conservative and military-minded individual would think that way in a relatively recent period of time, it speaks volumes to the sordid state of affairs that America is in today.

An Honest Dream of Equality Poisoned by Pernicious Propaganda

Bill O’Reilly Uses Martin Luther King To Attack African Americans
 http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_uses_martin_luther_king_to_attack_african_americans_08272013#Sl87hYJze7qSc7iQ.99

     On this historic day marking the semi-centennial anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s landmark "I Have a Dream" speech, August 28, 2013, there are those who twist its legacy for their own backwards agenda. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and host of the Talking Points commentary took it upon himself to warp and simplify the complicated issue of disproportionate crime by African Americans on the historic day's very eve. Indeed, Bill oftentimes finds time on most days to condescend other human beings of different color, and it is perfectly fine for him to do so. But one has to really question the gall of him to do so on the night before the 50th anniversary of the famous speech and, in extension, the current political climate that is caused by the conservative notions of the sanctity of the family and of personal responsibility being used to buttress, arguably, racism. Of course conservatism has its place in politics. But in today's times it has seen a disproportionate increase in influence, reflecting the verdict in the Trayvon vs Zimmerman case that set a precedent for killing on suspicion and Fox News's superior audience numbers compared to any other news show despite their repeated insistence that the news media is liberal and that Fox News viewers are less informed than if they watched no news at all, statistically. Conservatism, in accordance with the new online textbook in the A.P. Government course, is a fundamental mentality of staying "traditional." But this focus on tradition was clearly erroneous when looking back in time. It was, after all, tradition that was used as justification to continue slavery,something that is now universally considered immoral but was considered just back then. Tradition is not a valid excuse for any wrongdoing; progress stems from challenging societal norms that are unjust and bettering the life of society in general. Conservatism, at least according to the definition outlined in the course book, strikes me as a highly rigid and anti-intellectual ideology that discourages innovation in thought. As Bill no doubt knows, "family values" is a good way to garner votes but a horribly simple way of looking at such a complex and diverse world. Individual accountability might sound nice, but as it is shown throughout history, only recognition and subsequent reformation causes any real change worth noting. In essence, conservatism as an ideology needs to be reorganized and gain much-needed empathy, as accurate pollster Nate Silver put it, or it will not survive going on into the modern age. 

   

Bonus Post 4: The Differences

     John Klein's book on the subject of establishment candidate Bill Clinton ran holistically counter to the decentralization of government that Ron Paul argues for. The former argued for increased government intervention, even if indirect through voucher systems, versus the latter's desire for complete and utter dismantlement of any government aid whatsoever. The first represents what is essentially the new form of mainstream government policy making: to reach a consensus in order to get much-needed reform past both houses in a bipartisan effort. In contrast, Dr. Paul insists on demolition of government, something that runs opposite to what the Clinton Administration did, favoring government intervention for most issues. While Clinton is a classic representation of today's establishment candidate, Paul is what is arguably the only representative of an anti-establishment group that has any significant sway nationally while still being vehemently opposed to any government involvement whatsoever. Clinton favored polling out options to such an extent that he even polled whether or not to tell the truth about the Lewinsky Scandal, a sensible if petty carefulness, while Paul refuses to budge on even the smallest of his policy ideas, something admirable though politically inadvisable in current times. Klein presents a very moderate position, giving credit where he believes it is due while also mercilessly attacking Clinton for the relatively few hiccups his campaign endured. The book written by Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a truly self-promoting piece of literature, one that defiantly and consistently boasts his way as the right way. To be fair Klein actually was somewhat outspoken on things like the fickleness of the public just like Clinton while Paul astutely appealed to it, but Klein never expressly states one position as superior to another, even when Clinton supported it. Paul's style speaks out in volumes to the one-track mindset that he expresses against conventional wisdom, and rightly so, as the book is after all Paul's go-to guide for his far more energetic supporters. What was synthesized was the political atmosphere is much more willing to come to agreement for common interests but loves to make a show of almost every other issue which there is not a mutual, profitable solution. Capitol Hill is not closed off to change, but understandably has it marked as a last resort in an environment in which stability has become valued above a purely pragmatic point of view. The lack of pragmatism is precisely what has given previous political outcasts such as Ron Paul the power to seriously challenge the establishment. The American People clearly want activism and are unnerved by the clearly reactionary Washington response to the unprecedented accountability and access to their lives that the Information Age affords. As an ironic backlash, the increased accountability has led to legislature which refuses to take risks against the conservatism that power holds, the very same power that actually helps to elect the legislature, the very same power the American People despise. That animosity and lack of trust has allowed a wide range of leaders with very different political ideologies to unite, even something as unfeasible as Ron Paul's virtual government shutdown, as long as the underlying motive is to bring much-wanted change and reform to Washington.

Bonus Post 3: The Conclusion to the Manifesto

     In the second part Ron Paul makes a more general argument, going from specific points that liberals and conservatives truly do disagree on and moves onto more unilateral agreements between both sides such as the recent erosion of civil rights, as a strong finish which is not as controversial among the factions' dissidents. Doing so no doubt strengthens the sense of contingency that Ron Paul so desperately needs and aspires to in order for his movement to have any momentum going forward. Paul espouses economic sanctions based infamously on commodities such as gold and silver. Dr. Paul completely dismisses the argument that times are changing and so must standards for the economy that have been held in the very infancy of the country. Following the conclusion of that argument, Paul moves onto civil liberties and wisely melds his libertarian point of view very deftly with egregious violations of people, something nearly everyone would reasonably be against. By doing so, he makes libertarian-ism de facto with the fight against the degradation of American rights. The result is a very skewed, if technically correct, reassurance that libertarian-ism would not have constitutionally delegated rights limited by a perpetual-war government. Finally the final issue Dr. Paul touches upon is the need to end money in politics, once again a very popular position with the people, if hated by virtually all establishment representatives who do not have as big a loyal following to help fund their campaigns. He argues for the importance of federal government to shrink, presenting is as the ultimate solution to corruption, as he presents drastically reduced government as the answer to all issues. But the issue with the states' rights Ron Paul so feverishly supports is that the U.S. has a demonstrable history of doing the wrong thing when looking back at history. Sure liberty for all may sound nice, but without any guarantee that empty promise cannot be fulfilled. The most significant example in support of this position is when many of the U.S. states chose to keep African Americans disenfranchised. Such an occurrence is paradoxical to the promise of freedom that Paul presents, as freedom to choose is not freedom guaranteed. There has to be a leader to guide the United States and keep it together on issues such as these as is famously said, "a nation divided cannot stand," the failure of which would no doubt be devastating and unfeasible in terms of national security  in such turbulent times.

Bonus Post 2: The Argument So Far

     Ron Paul argues intensively for his stance of government nonintervention. Predictably, he does so through facts and numbers that are interpreted in his mutual favor, a clear indication that a candidate is a substantive threat. He presents his case as a rationale for the book in the start and then moves onto explain his points in no particular order. Indeed Paul tacitly appeals to both liberals and conservatives/libertarians who grow disgruntled with the current politicians who intermingle their ideas with unprecedented  thoroughfare. As a libertarian he presents his side with solid numbers while touting his own ideas as the only sensible answers, a smart tactic that helps to clout party doubt-fulls under the same uniform umbrella that appears sensible and welcoming. Although it is clear that the disproportionate number of conservative mentions amounts to far greater pandering to that political spectrum, it is also a reflection of  his realization that a much greater number of his following has previously identified as conservative. Disappointingly, though predictably, Ron Paul presented virtually no fair view of liberal or conservative alternatives, instead opting to point to the Founding Fathers, most of whom were conservatives themselves at the time, and stressed very basic core functions as justifications through the quotations. To supplement his points, Paul points to the constitution and has a lengthy discussion throughout about it. However, how will Ron Paul continue to justify the outright exclusion of popular programs like social security at the moral level?    

Bonus Post 1: The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul(TR:MRP)- Introduction

     In accordance with a necessary and intellectual, if radical, contrast to the establishment candidate of Bill Clinton, the perfect foil that would fit these criteria while still being situated in the new century was, invariably, congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul embodies everything that Clinton is, by mere merit of existence, fundamentally opposed to. While Clinton is a New Democrat, an open-minded amalgamation of traditional liberalism cultivated and modified to be palatable to neoconservative tastes, Paul is a textbook libertarian(quite the opposite of a classic liberal despite the similar nomenclature) that is utterly uncompromising in his ideals and on the other side of virtually every issue Clinton supports by his own nature. It would be refreshing to see a character that rose to prominence almost on his own who would be inherently contradictory to the previous reading. Through the book, a thorough understanding of libertarian-ism from one of its most ardent constituents can be expected to be developed, along with a working knowledge of a potential usurper to the highly traditional state that Washington is currently in. Dr. Paul has indeed been incredibly consistent on virtually every issue, with a near-perfect record corroborating his stated ideology. As a long-time serving congressman that has not changed views for short-term gain and as a former physician, Paul is one of the most acclaimed libertarians out there and presents a very unique point of view. Obviously, the repercussions of such immovable principles is anticipated to highly slant the reading in favor of his particular political brand of ideology. The title of his own book, after all, includes the word "manifesto," a word which certainly discourages fair presentations of the opposite side. However biased it is, however, is besides the point; the reading is meant not to serve to give a fair representation of the political and socioeconomic realities of libertarian-ism, but as a go-to manual as to what the movement represents as it exists in this day-and-age.

Post 4: The Review

     Mr. Klein's faithful reminiscence of the Clinton Administration has proved to be a valuable asset in a historically accurate, if personally charged, account of the inner workings of the bureaucracy. The novel drives deep into the day-to-day affairs of the Clintons while not being overly telling, presenting a colorful and interesting tale that whoever wishes for a realistically objective story should read. Many details not publicly well-known are scrutinized while a glimpse of the inner workings of Washington is given. Throughout its substantive and relevant proceedings, many politically significant events are given a moderate perspective to be peered through. For those wanting a comprehensive yet pleasantly temperate telling of one of the most misunderstood and crucial presidencies in recent times, with a noticeable but strangely quaint tendency to stray into the emotional, this book is an excellent read. Thus the book is definitely recommendable as a well-balanced, if complicated, political memoir of an essential figure. Indeed the book may be enjoyed by those who like a moderate account of history in general and for those who cherish a rare flower of temperament in a jungle of political backbiting. The whole account was, personally, vastly informative of politics in America. It gave an idea of how things work in Washington that is simple and, perhaps exactly for that reason, rings true. It details how every party wants to serve their own interests in an environment where a ideologically pure candidate is struck down as an ideologue, where every candidate, be him or her Democrat or Republican, has to beg the corporate establishment for funds through the butchering of their own ideals. When a strong personality like Bill Clinton has to change his own ideology the minute he steps in office, it truly shows just how corrupt Washington  and the complacent media have become.  

Post 3: A Different Kind of Man

     Mr. Clinton would learn how the political game was played on Washington very quickly. During his second term, he astutely turned to polling and the public as tools he could use in his own favor. Whereas his first term was defined by an embarrassing willingness to fall into the political landmines Republican presidential hopefuls such as Newt Gingrich set up, in his second term Mr. Clinton was far more precise and careful. Over time he learned to juggle his New Democrat ideals with his politically active wife the Old Democrat Hillary while also fighting the omnipresent Republican opposition. When a government shutdown loomed, he wisely used it to his advantage and put the Republicans into a war of attrition, a war in which they would be constantly chided for being unreasonable. Following up with an ill-advised counter-offer, the New Democrat delivered the finishing blow and won a balanced budget deal that would be remembered by many as his greatest legacy, showing his political savviness. In a series of unfortunate events, he would be forever bludgeoned by a string of attempts to make scandals of his public life, the centerpiece being the infamous Lewinsky Scandal in which Bill Clinton would famously remark "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The whole event was even given a back story as to how he came to say such a preposterous thing. It was revealed that a close friend told Clinton to be aggressive. The author Joe Klein was accordingly harsh of Clinton and his bad decisions, charging him, like many others, of hurting his legacy forever. Conclusively the novel revealed that through being completely honest and articulate the issue became a non-issue and the Republicans who wanted impeachment were, in an amazing turn of events, questioned as to why they would even consider it. Indeed it appears that was far more dogged in his stance against the Republican elite and thus had a base to fall back to, a move that Mr. Obama curiously did not follow in his first year of office despite conversing with Clinton and undoubtedly knowing his history. Perhaps reality needs to explode in one's face instead of blossom serenely for one to take the message to heart.

Post 2: Interlude

     As per expectations the book has very valuable inside information that thoroughly recounts the Clinton Administration in an objective manner. In fact, the objectivity can be considered remarkable as it often chastises its very namesake for shortcomings and regrets. Often times personal conviction is added which bemoans Mr. Clinton a publicly inept individual, the extents of which are stark and moderating in a novel one would expect to protect the President. Not to say that it does not, of course. It often concludes that the President should be otherwise be remembered as a political genius if not for a starry-eyed public and sensationalist press. Luckily, it follows its entire premise in a way that is arguably as close to historical and balanced as one involved in politics can pull off. The novel follows a mostly straightforward chronological account of the administration, straying off the timeline to point out eminent points and events that the author must have felt needed to be addressed beforehand to give proper context, some of which can at times be surprisingly personal. Via first-hand accounts, the author details Clinton's slow rise to power followed by the shortcomings and subsequent shock the rookie president endured by a vehemently hostile Republican presence. When reading such revelations, the presidency of Barack Obama is brought to mind. Observations are raised on how similar the two are; both are rookies that wanted to get much done their first year. Soon after their arrival, however, the Democratic leaders realize that the political tapestry is weaved in hostile, even conspiratorial ways. Republicans are astoundingly against the duo just because they are from opposing parties and not because of any reason of true substance. In order to get what they both want, the Presidents have to make compromises that disillusion any remaining faith their traditional constituency have further complicating the already fragile alliance and converting public opinion from positive to widespread hate. So the question to be posed at this point is, what would make Bill Clinton a president that left a budget surplus while simultaneously leaving the Oval Office as one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history?

Post 1: the Rationale

     In lieu with a desire to enter the world of politics in a relatively straightforward and intellectual manner, the book is was chosen as it offers a reputably  impartial assessment of a very relevant and controversial President Bill Clinton; someone who has drawn extensive ire from the right. Thus the point of view is decidedly left-leaning, but articulated from a very prominent reporter who has previously written a bestseller of that was also on the left of the political spectrum. It is expected that the work will provide solid facts on its subject. In addition, the author Joe Klein has also been closely involved with the President in an openly critical way, further accentuating his credibility on the subject matter. Mr. Klein has had a record of printing articles opposing the former President, so a rare and unique point of view can be salvaged from a source that can, through an  established track record, be as unbiased as possible from a person of said background and history. By choosing the book as a first read, a triage of criteria are, in essence, achieved: an exposure to a liberal author's style, a personal interest in the Clinton Administration and the need for an academic structure are all satiated.