Rachel Eldringhoff, College Republicans:
The 2012 election showed a divided country. When analyzing the popular vote, Obama and Romney were neck and neck. As an incumbent, Obama still only pleased half of the country. As a candidate, Romney was close to almost pleasing half of the country. Romney lost most of his votes among young people, African-Americans and Hispanics.
Many people fear that the conservative agenda are working in a different generation than the present. However, the argument is not valid. No matter the generation, issues such as the economy will not be generational. Conservatives do not view their core, social beliefs as needed to be changed with the generation because beliefs are beliefs no matter the generation. For instance, let’s take the idea of slavery in the United States. There were people who knew slavery needed to be abolished and civil rights needed to thrive that do not connect to the generation. Using the excuse of the generation to back up an argument is not valid.
We need to analysis social issues on an individual basis. There are people who believe in the conservative social agenda and others for the democratic social agenda. All that matters is that the people considering the views are exercising their right to vote.
Additionally, the major issue in this election is the need for Republicans and Democrats to work together in Congress to assure there are compromises made. As I speak of in many other pieces, there needs to be more compromises to unite the country. Once the country is united, we are seen as stronger and more organized. Well what is able to be compromised between the two parties? If you tune into FOX or CNN, you will hear both sides discussing how some issues such as the size of government or social issues not being able to be compromised. I believe citizens should vote on issues in which the government will then see how great or little the compromise needs to be.
The view taken by most Americans is very pessimistic and the very reason why our country has been divided for many generations. The key to compromise is to consider the viewpoint of others and understand that a compromise is better than having a loser in the situation. The idea of a self-help system in politics only creates for a divided and unstable country. The country needs to identify the system in regards to what is better for everyone, not for one party.
C. Harrison Myers, Towson Libertarians:
It’s not even 8 p.m. on Tuesday yet and I’m starting this response. I haven’t looked at the exit polls, but I know who won—I’ve known since election season started. The winner this year, with 100 percent of the votes, as with every election year, is the State. It matters not whether the head of state is Team R or Team D, we can expect the same policies to be enacted, and the same inherent nature of government.
Every election year we ask the question: Would my master look better in a blue tie or red? Instead, we ought to ask ourselves every once in a while: By what authority? What is it about government that makes it legitimate for a group of people to take a portion of my income and use it to tell me how I may live my life? One might say, “Well, we voted. That’s what the people chose.” But should a group have the authority to dictate how the minority may live simply because they are the majority? Is it fair to aggress against others—steal from them, defraud them, imprison them—if 51 percent (or in this case, only 50.3 percent for Obama) agree that it is acceptable? Is this entire system legitimate? These are the questions we ought to be asking.
In a sort of Orwellian doublespeak, we hear politicians and pundits throw around the words ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ so often that we no longer even understand what they mean, or how much the two differ. But making a suggestion to your government via ballot box does not make you free. To quote the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, “a man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” This is how democracy operates: by creating a system of slaves, slave drivers and slave masters. Only by the ironic use of the word ‘freedom’ could we ever see slaves enthusiastically applauding their masters.
I propose we consider an alternative with which I’m sure everyone has some familiarity. As children we learned the rule “Don’t hit or steal.” But as we got older, we gathered that there was a clause that excluded the government from this rule, that taxation at gunpoint is moral, but why? The Non-Aggression Principle—that no man should aggress against the person or property of another—should be central and catholic within our society. No exceptions, even if two wolves outvote one sheep on what to eat for dinner.
Neither this election or any other will make us free or prosperous. When both candidates are in agreement that government is exempt from the moral code that applies to individuals, we will not see a change for the better, even more so when both candidates agree on as much as they do, especially with regard to monetary policy, foreign affairs, the drug war and the very role of government. No matter who wins, we lose. Saying elections are meaningless may be a stretch, but if we truly wish to be free, we must see the gun in the room and work outside the political system. As Goethe put it, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Matt Sanford, College Democrats of Towson:
I am ecstatic! President Obama won re-election by beating Mitt Romney in every single battleground state. It was a landslide that will give the President the political capital he needs to move forward with his agenda. Obama also has the advantage of an even more Democratic Senate. Democratic Senate candidates won in the vast majority of toss-up races. After the dust settled and the votes were counted, it was announced that the Senate will have more women than ever before. 80 percent of these women are Democrats, showing how well the Democratic message resonates with the demographic. There is still not enough female representation in politics, but this is a milestone for sure. In The House of Representatives, Democrats picked up a few seats, but not enough to regain the majority. Also, New Hampshire elected its first transgender woman to the statehouse.
Perhaps even more important than who won is who lost. Long after the votes were counted, Allen West, a tea party extremist from Florida finally conceded his race. West famously accused the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus of secretly being Communists. Richard Murdoch, who argued that pregnancies from rapes were “gift from God,” Todd Akin, who said if it was “legitimate rape” the woman’s body has a way to “shut that whole thing down” and prevent pregnancy, and Joe Walsh, who stated that women “can’t” die in childbirth are some of the many Republican candidates all lost to Democrats on Tuesday.
When you look at the demographic analysis of who voted and for whom, it is not hard to see why the President and Democrats won by such large margins. Women made up 53 percent of the vote in 2012 and the President won the majority of them by twenty percentage points or more. Not surprising when you remember that Democrats stand for choice in women’s healthcare, while Mitt Romney stood against equal pay for equal work. The President also won the Hispanic/Latino vote by 72 percent. Again, this is not surprising because Mitt Romney supported a policy of “self-deportation,” which is really making the lives of undocumented Americans unbearable until they go back across the border, while President Obama supported comprehensive immigration reform.
The most important effect of the election has been that Republicans are finally willing to play ball. In his acceptance speech, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), said that he looked forward to working with the President in the upcoming term. What makes Boehner so willing to work with his rival? The Speaker’s party is in a weak position. The voters have clearly showed that they like Democratic policies and dislike Republican obstructionism. Boehner and other Republican leaders know that they cannot continue to pursue an agenda that makes them unacceptable to the fastest growing segments of the American public if they want to win any more elections. That change in attitude is the best effect of the election, for all of us.
The 2012 election showed a divided country. When analyzing the popular vote, Obama and Romney were neck and neck. As an incumbent, Obama still only pleased half of the country. As a candidate, Romney was close to almost pleasing half of the country. Romney lost most of his votes among young people, African-Americans and Hispanics.
Many people fear that the conservative agenda are working in a different generation than the present. However, the argument is not valid. No matter the generation, issues such as the economy will not be generational. Conservatives do not view their core, social beliefs as needed to be changed with the generation because beliefs are beliefs no matter the generation. For instance, let’s take the idea of slavery in the United States. There were people who knew slavery needed to be abolished and civil rights needed to thrive that do not connect to the generation. Using the excuse of the generation to back up an argument is not valid.
We need to analysis social issues on an individual basis. There are people who believe in the conservative social agenda and others for the democratic social agenda. All that matters is that the people considering the views are exercising their right to vote.
Additionally, the major issue in this election is the need for Republicans and Democrats to work together in Congress to assure there are compromises made. As I speak of in many other pieces, there needs to be more compromises to unite the country. Once the country is united, we are seen as stronger and more organized. Well what is able to be compromised between the two parties? If you tune into FOX or CNN, you will hear both sides discussing how some issues such as the size of government or social issues not being able to be compromised. I believe citizens should vote on issues in which the government will then see how great or little the compromise needs to be.
The view taken by most Americans is very pessimistic and the very reason why our country has been divided for many generations. The key to compromise is to consider the viewpoint of others and understand that a compromise is better than having a loser in the situation. The idea of a self-help system in politics only creates for a divided and unstable country. The country needs to identify the system in regards to what is better for everyone, not for one party.
C. Harrison Myers, Towson Libertarians:
It’s not even 8 p.m. on Tuesday yet and I’m starting this response. I haven’t looked at the exit polls, but I know who won—I’ve known since election season started. The winner this year, with 100 percent of the votes, as with every election year, is the State. It matters not whether the head of state is Team R or Team D, we can expect the same policies to be enacted, and the same inherent nature of government.
Every election year we ask the question: Would my master look better in a blue tie or red? Instead, we ought to ask ourselves every once in a while: By what authority? What is it about government that makes it legitimate for a group of people to take a portion of my income and use it to tell me how I may live my life? One might say, “Well, we voted. That’s what the people chose.” But should a group have the authority to dictate how the minority may live simply because they are the majority? Is it fair to aggress against others—steal from them, defraud them, imprison them—if 51 percent (or in this case, only 50.3 percent for Obama) agree that it is acceptable? Is this entire system legitimate? These are the questions we ought to be asking.
In a sort of Orwellian doublespeak, we hear politicians and pundits throw around the words ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ so often that we no longer even understand what they mean, or how much the two differ. But making a suggestion to your government via ballot box does not make you free. To quote the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, “a man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” This is how democracy operates: by creating a system of slaves, slave drivers and slave masters. Only by the ironic use of the word ‘freedom’ could we ever see slaves enthusiastically applauding their masters.
I propose we consider an alternative with which I’m sure everyone has some familiarity. As children we learned the rule “Don’t hit or steal.” But as we got older, we gathered that there was a clause that excluded the government from this rule, that taxation at gunpoint is moral, but why? The Non-Aggression Principle—that no man should aggress against the person or property of another—should be central and catholic within our society. No exceptions, even if two wolves outvote one sheep on what to eat for dinner.
Neither this election or any other will make us free or prosperous. When both candidates are in agreement that government is exempt from the moral code that applies to individuals, we will not see a change for the better, even more so when both candidates agree on as much as they do, especially with regard to monetary policy, foreign affairs, the drug war and the very role of government. No matter who wins, we lose. Saying elections are meaningless may be a stretch, but if we truly wish to be free, we must see the gun in the room and work outside the political system. As Goethe put it, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Matt Sanford, College Democrats of Towson:
I am ecstatic! President Obama won re-election by beating Mitt Romney in every single battleground state. It was a landslide that will give the President the political capital he needs to move forward with his agenda. Obama also has the advantage of an even more Democratic Senate. Democratic Senate candidates won in the vast majority of toss-up races. After the dust settled and the votes were counted, it was announced that the Senate will have more women than ever before. 80 percent of these women are Democrats, showing how well the Democratic message resonates with the demographic. There is still not enough female representation in politics, but this is a milestone for sure. In The House of Representatives, Democrats picked up a few seats, but not enough to regain the majority. Also, New Hampshire elected its first transgender woman to the statehouse.
Perhaps even more important than who won is who lost. Long after the votes were counted, Allen West, a tea party extremist from Florida finally conceded his race. West famously accused the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus of secretly being Communists. Richard Murdoch, who argued that pregnancies from rapes were “gift
When you look at the demographic analysis of who voted and for whom, it is not hard to see why the President and Democrats won by such large margins. Women made up 53 percent of the vote in 2012 and the President won the majority of them by twenty percentage points or more. Not surprising when you remember that Democrats stand for choice in women’s healthcare, while Mitt Romney stood against equal pay for equal work. The President also won the Hispanic/Latino vote by 72 percent. Again, this is not surprising because Mitt Romney supported a policy of “self-deportation,” which is really making the lives of undocumented Americans unbearable until they go back across the border, while President Obama supported comprehensive immigration reform.
The most important effect of the election has been that Republicans are finally willing to play ball. In his acceptance speech, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), said that he looked forward to working with the President in the upcoming term. What makes Boehner so willing to work with his rival? The Speaker’s party is in a weak position. The voters have clearly showed that they like Democratic policies and dislike Republican obstructionism. Boehner and other Republican leaders know that they cannot continue to pursue an agenda that makes them unacceptable to the fastest growing segments of the American public if they want to win any more elections. That change in attitude is the best effect of the election, for all of us.