I Heart Huckabee

Yeah, so what, I used the phrase that everyone has thought but nobody has used since the man entered the race for president. Sue me.

I really do like Huckabee, not necessarily for the position of commander in chief, but I think his is a voice that politics and the Republican Party have needed for a long time. The man seems to embody the much maligned term "compassionate conservative," not to mention that he plays a mean guitar and actually uses jokes and sarcasm on the campaign trail - something I'm sure the other candidates avoid only because it didn't test well with their focus groups.

Huckabee is the first populist voice in a long time to be present in the Republican Party, possibly ever, as far as I know. The fact that he isn't willing to pander to the whims of big business may not play well with staunch members of the grand old party, but it's something this country desperately needs. In fact, if you could take some of Huckabee's populism and faith, McCain's experience, and Obama's inspiring charisma and you'd have something resembling a dream candidate. Oh, the genetically engineered candidate...

Yes, I just praised Huckabee for his faith, something many feel the need to ridicule him for. The problem is, he's just playing the game like everyone else. He hadn't made any real impact until one of the early debates when he gave an inspired reply about evolution or abortion or some other incredibly conservative topic. People responded. Since then, he's played his strength: his faith. Unfortunately, in modern American politics, traits like that are a double-edged sword. For every person inspired by this kind of rhetoric, someone else is turned off.

I don't think Huckabee has gotten a fair shake. He shouldn't be president, but he needs to stay involved with national politics. He doesn't seem too young, maybe a term or two in the senate would prove to the nation he has what it takes.

Anyway, my hat's off to you Huckabee.

I love you McCain, but....

...don't play that game. You're better than that. Don't take one comment out of context and berate your competitor for ambiguities. Don't misquote that comment. Don't re-interpret the meaning of that comment. Most of all, don't play into Mitt Romney's hands. Just don't.

You see, the worst thing McCain can do is let Mitt win the damn Republican nomination, and the only way that's going to happen is if McCain plays Romney's game on Romney's terms. Tonight, during the Republican debate, John McCain decided to hammer Romney about an ambiguous quote made in April of 2007 regarding timetables. Apparently at that point, everyone in Washington was discussing the failure in Iraq and how we need to set timetables for an exit strategy. Low and behold, Mitt had recently announced his candidacy for the Presidency and decided to weigh in on the issue. He made a mention of timetables - supposedly regarding internal goals, not withdrawal - and McCain has been making a possibly spurious connection between this mention of timetables and the corresponding democratic rhetoric using the same word.

Yeesh.

Sure, the surge is doing OK for now and violence has dropped, but also take note that nobody's waving any "Mission Accomplished" banners either. Things in Iraq are far from over and the troop presence that we're maintaining now isn't fiscally feasible in the long-term. Hopefully, the military and all the people working hard in Iraq to get things moving are taking advantage of the relative peace to make some real progress. But I digress.

John - may I call you John? - don't play the Washington game with a man who's playing the outsider card. Yes, you made a witty comeback about how Romney's attack ads were setting the tone for the Republican contest, and you're right. But at the same time, you emitted an almost smug, self-assured attitude tonight that can do nothing but hurt you. Confidence is one thing, but arrogance is another. Stick to the high road, stick to legitimate quotes, and be the statesman we all know you can be.

Predictions:

Romney v. Clinton = President Clinton (after a dreary 'lesser of two evils' contest)
Romney v. Obama = President Obama
McCain v. Clinton = President McCain
McCain v. Obama = The best presidential election any of us will see in our lifetimes.

A 2008 Surprise?

It's only April of 2007 and people are already foaming at the mouth over the 2008 Presidential Election. Maybe it's because the current administration is crap, maybe because it's the first Presidential Election in decades that doesn't feature either a President or VP from the past administration as a candidate, maybe it's because politics has devolved to a new low - who knows? The point is that for the first time that I know of, the first quarter campaign contributions for the major candidates were legitimate news and held interest for more than just the standard crowd of politicos. We're starting early this time.

One major question I have is what enduring effect this will have on the electorate. In the past two Presidential Elections, the American people not only felt as if they were voting for the proverbial "lesser of two evils," but most people were just plain sick of the entire process by the time the election actually rolled around. With all this early attention, will the same thing just happen sooner this cycle? One wonders...

This year could be the first legitimate time since Ross Perot that an outsider could have a chance at the Presidency. Let me explain. Around a year from now, after hearing about the current major party contenders ad infinitum, the American people may just become fed up. After hearing not only the same watered down tripe from all of the major candidates, but also after putting up with a monumental amount of mudslinging and back-biting, the American people are going to get sick. They'll be sick of the rhetoric, the same old faces, the "Establishment" picks, and the lack of substance that Presidential contenders generally bring to the table.

Enter an outsider.

This doesn't have to be a big name that's been waiting in the wings - even thought that would help. It doesn't even have to be a multi-billionaire - althought that would definitely help. All it needs to be is someone with a vision, someone with charisma, and someone without the baggage that comes with the two major parties or the two more popular ideologies. It needs to be an independent who will not only offer pragmatic solutions to our nations woes, but who will eschew the petty partisan bickering of his or her competition.

You may ask if this is even possible. Is there anyone out there who could do these things? I don't know. All I can tell you is that if there is someone, we need to find them and talk to them. This is a chance for the US to move just a little bit away from the artificial divide imposed on us by our two-party system. While all the other candidates are campaigning like idiots to convince ideological zealots within their party that they represent their values, an independent candidate could be criss-crossing the nation explaining why we need to move beyond party and offer practical solutions for the problems facing our country.

If you had to choose between a host of people trying to tear each other apart or someone who is genuinely trying to lift our nation up, which would you choose?

Then again, until a mystery person appears to fill this role, all I can do is dream. But oh, what a dream!

So Then...

It's been an incredibly long time since I posted anything, but I though this might be a good time to start up again. Why? Because. No other reason is really required.

Actually, I've been reading a lot of www.watchblog.com and I just can't get enough. They've been talking about everything from the rhetoric used by the left and right to villainize each other and its impact on the overall polarization of the electorate to economic disparity and how even though the tide seems to be rising, all the boats aren't.

Not that you need to read any site other than mine (ha!), but since watchblog has such an incredible bevy of writers and is updated so frequently, you should probably start reading them more often, expecially if my blog doesn't sate your political appetite.

I realize this isn't really a substantive post, but at least I'm making an effort.

Later...

The Original Article...

Due to a few requests, here is the original article I submitted to the Wheel:

Last Wednesday Emory hosted “Best in Show,” one of the many sugar-coated, summer-campy events held for incoming freshmen. Showcasing seventeen of the many performance groups on campus, this campfire-style evening of entertainment provided everything from songs to dances to skits. The only things missing were the s’mores (and any sign of an open flame). Throughout the course of the evening, a theme emerged. Let me elaborate…

The first group to perform was The Issues Troupe, a group that “uses theatre as a tool to explore the issues that deeply affect college students… …such as racial stereotypes, cultural differences, and current issues.” With all the subtlety and self-righteousness of an ABC after-school special, the group proceeded to enact a pair of sketches designed to expose and discredit common racial stereotypes. Just imagine Chappelle’s Show without the humor.

I’ll spare you a detailed description of the sketches, the content is of little importance. What is important—or, at least, what was emphasized—was the message: stereotypes are wrong. No, the nice girl of middle-eastern descent isn’t planning to blow you up; no, the gay man doesn’t have any fashion sense; no, the Asian girl isn’t good at math. You get the picture.
The audience reacted the only way it could: with discomfort. Nervous (or possibly just racist!) laughter could be heard after each horrible stereotype—everything from Jews having horns to African Americans being kleptomaniacs—causing me to wonder exactly what the overall point of the segment was.
The show might have been meaningful if it hadn’t been a message we’d heard a thousand times before. Everyone, from Sesame Street to Power Rangers to Pokemon, has been promoting multiculturalism and debunking stereotypes for as long as most of us can remember.
The show also might have been more effective if it delved beyond clichéd stereotypes and instead of just contradicting them, investigated the issue of why they exist in the first place. It even could have debunked a few white stereotypes (oppressors, predominantly racist, not poor, generic, and lacking in cultural heritage).
What most undermined The Issue Troupe’s message was the program that followed. With few exceptions, the acts that followed were almost completely segregated. Karma and similar dance groups were almost entirely Asian; B.A.M. and Ngambika were almost all Black, Alpha Phi Alpha was completely Black, and if the looks on their faces were any indicator, they were angry (stereotype, anyone?); NSA and Aural Pleasure were predominantly white, with most minority students gravitating toward AHANA and Jewish students to Kol Hanesher.
The real question is, how does the Emory community compare to the rest of the nation? The proportions of minorities that attend Emory are quite different than the national numbers, but it can easily be argued that there is much more inter-racial interaction at Emory than there is in the country at large. But is this truly diversity?
Of course, the idea of diversity encompasses many more issues than just race or sexual orientation. Things like intelligence and socioeconomic status also contribute to the diversity found in the “real” world. On that front, Emory is severely lacking. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine that Emory lacks any real diversity in SAT scores and—judging from the over-priced imported cars and designer clothing seen around campus—it can be easily inferred that there isn’t much socioeconomic diversity on campus either.
Also, the numerous ethnic groups on campus allow students of similar backgrounds to come together and not only celebrate their heritage, but share it with the Emory community at large. The fact that many of these groups include a member or two from outside their particular racial group speaks to the progress the university is making as a whole.
So please, spare me the over-the-top theatrics. If you really want to make progress in race relations, try to open up that “dialogue” that everyone seems to be talking about or make some new friends or join a group filled with people who are different from you. Or, just keep doing what you’ve been doing. Emory may be self-segregated, but it’s still ahead of the rest of the country.

The Article that Wasn't Published...

Below is the article the Wheel wouldn't publish. Please be aware that the article is extremely sarcastic and is meant to make a point, not to offend. Please read the article and tune in to WMRE (Emory's Radio Station) tonight from 10pm-12am for a discussion about race and all things Emory. To listen to WMRE either go to http://www.wmre.org or, if you're on campus, tune in to station 26. To call in to discuss the article or any of the other topics, just call (404) 727-WMRE (9673).

I look forward to your feedback...

My name is Matthew Seifert and I’m a white male from Ohio.

The other week, I wanted to write an article that dealt with racial issues on campus. After writing what I thought was a decent article, I was told that a number of changes would have to be made. I’ll spare you the specifics, let’s just say that in the end, the reason for the changes came down to one factor: I’m white.
It’s not my editor’s fault; he’s just being very cautious about approaching the topic of race. This is understandable considering there was a controversy last spring over another article dealing with the same subject. Of course, it doesn’t help that I’m a corn-fed white boy from middle-America, the very embodiment of the white male stereotype.

Because of my whiteness, society won’t let me talk about racial issues, especially those that apply to minorities. That’s OK; the article I wrote also addressed issues about white stereotypes. Since I’m a white person, I should be able to comment on this personal issue, right? Not according to conventional wisdom.
If I make any comments about white stereotypes or racism toward whites, I simply portray myself as a privileged, whiny white man quibbling over minor issues. Since I’m not a minority, it’s not possible for me to know anything about racism or suffering.

I bet even this article won’t be acceptable to the public. As far as the status quo is concerned, I’m not even allowed to talk about how I’m not allowed to talk about race. That’s exactly how entrenched the double-standard is.

By default I’m a generic, slave-owning misogynist who killed millions of indigenous people with all my evil, white, male buddies. Our good-old-boy network from Mother Caucasia then decided to take over the world using oppression, capitalism, patriarchy and sitcoms lacking minorities. Because of this, I’m disqualified from participating in the race discussion, end of story.

As things stand, I’m only allowed to talk about race if I’m complaining about white people. If I tell everyone how outrageous it is that Danny Glover can’t hail a cab in New York City or talk about how guilty I feel about slavery or engage in any number of self-loathing topics of conversation I can talk for as long as I want.

The thing is, I don’t feel all that guilty. Don’t get me wrong, slavery was a horrible part of our history and should have never happened. The problem is, I never owned any slaves. In fact, none of the poor, rural farmers on my mother’s side of the family or the refugees from the former Yugoslavia on my father’s side owned slaves either. Yes, at one point in history my ancestors may have benefited from the fruits of slave labor. But I sure haven’t.

You could argue that I’m benefiting from this past oppression; that my current lifestyle exists because all those previous generations of whites saw fit to take advantage of their position in the majority. How do I respond to that? All I can say is that America is a great place to live with abundant opportunities. Any benefits I may be enjoying because of my race are marginal at best.

All I really wanted to say in the article that never got printed was that the Issues Troupe’s performance at the Best in Show event at the beginning of the semester was superficial and unproductive. All they did was try to debunk common minority stereotypes with a couple of skits, something that afternoon and Saturday morning television has been doing for years. They weren’t any more effective than wearing a “Stop Genocide in Darfur” t-shirt. If someone doesn’t already know about the problem, then just making them aware isn’t going to do much. I even ended that article on a positive note.

I wish I were qualified to talk about race. I believe there’s much I could say that could be part of a meaningful discussion. Shouldn’t this “dialogue” about race involve everyone on campus, including white folk? Shouldn’t we hear from everyone on the issue? I’d like to think so, but what do I know? I’m just a whiny white guy from Ohio.