On November 3^rd, 2010, Barack H. Obama will still reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but offices at the other end of that particular street might begin to move. Recently White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs let forth the earth shattering notion that Democrats might not control both chambers of Congress after the election. Not particularly surprising to anyone who has been paying attention…but rather poorly received by House Democrats. Indeed Speaker Pelosi (yikes!) lambasted Gibbs in a meeting with her Democratic colleagues.

No matter your current level of interest, I am here to tell you that the midterm elections should be of interest to you. What follows (hopefully) will be a persuasive argument as to why you should turn on (TV, internets, radio, twitters), how you should tune into House races, and why this all matters.

What about the Senate? For a variety of reasons (which I am happy, even eager, to discuss elsewhere) the Senate Majority Leader has no where near the control over his fellow members, legislative calendar, or policy, as the Speaker of the House does. Individual Senators and Committees, by practice and procedure, have much greater power in the upper chamber than in the lower. As a result, I would submit it is the Speaker of the House that is the second most powerful office in the land.

And it’s up for grabs. As Gibbs noted (despite his rather unsurprising ‘walking back’) the House is up for grabs. “Speaker Boehner” is a phrase which sends chills up the spines of Democrats everywhere, much as the mere utterance of the words “Speaker Pelosi” cause the average Republican to fret and avoid eating for some time.

So what should you pay attention to? There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought. The first, and easier to track, is national indicators. The state of the economy, the unemployment rate, the ‘national mood,’ and other metrics are all fair rough metrics of what is likely to happen. The alternative is to predict on a race by race basis how elections are likely to turn out and tally those predictions. (For those of you reading this to waste time and are really looking for an excuse not to get stuff done, you can read this piece or this one on forecasting).

So where to tune? The Cook Political Report is an invaluable source as a guide to which races are competitive and how they compare. His House Race charts can be found here. For those of you looking for a bit more content, and World Cup references, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is a must read. For those of your truly addicted, there are many more resources but a new one that I am quite fond of is a twitter feed @FECTweets run by Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline. The feed just broadcasts the quarterly fundraising results (2Q were due July 15) so less useful now, but good to have in the future.

There’s also the option to drop out. I’m not necessarily advocating you leave CMC for a semester to work on a campaign, though you could do worse things. You can phone bank from anywhere with Skype or a cell phone, and you can always write a check. If you do plan to go the cash route, I will not use this space to tell you who to send money to, but I will say this: go small or go home. Money you send to a House race in Idaho (Democrat/Republican) will go a lot further than dollars you spend to Illinois (Democrat/Republican).

Why does it matter that Nancy and Robert couldn’t play nice? It matters a great deal because the Speaker of the House is the second most powerful person in the nation and the White House Press Secretary is the public voice of the President.

Now you might retort ‘No, Jesse. I learned in Govt. 20 that it goes President, Vice President, Speaker of the House….’ Well, simply put, that’s just not true. The Vice Presidency of the United States of America, august title and all, is just not that important. Vice President Garner once said the Vice Presidency was “not worth a bucket of warm piss,” hardly the description of an all powerful office.

There are two principle reasons why this is true: a) the Vice President has no natural area of responsibility, except for those given to him by the President, and b) the Vice President has no vote (except in rare Senate ties) and has no natural power base or constituency to call upon.

Given our age, I am sure the comments section would fill with comments about Dick Cheney, was he not powerful? First it is worth noting that Cheney is the exception far more than the rule. Second, and more substantively, Cheney’s power within the Bush administration derived from his close, almost Chief of Staff-like relationship with the President. All politicians have close aids and allies who have their ear, and whose judgment the principal trusts. Vice President Cheney filled that role for President Bush, but unlike most advisors, his name was also on the ballot.

What is the point of this tangent? If we accept that the Vice President is not all that important, there is a vacancy in the number two slot…meet the Speaker of the House. The Speaker consolidates the powers of the House of Representatives in large measure in the Speaker’s office, has direct (if not de facto) control over what bills come to the floor, and just as importantly which bills do not. The Speaker can exercise an effective veto over legislation, and has a greater power, more than any other single member of Congress, to effect policy and political changes. This power is amplified when the Speaker is of a different party than the President as the Speaker also becomes in effect the voice of the ‘out’ party (see Gingrich, Newt).

Bottom line: November’s election matters a great deal. Control of a very powerful position is up for grabs, and this will have significant implications for the rest of President Obama’s term, for the course of the nation, and for national politics for the next few years. If that is something that interests you, there are a number of ways to get information. If you want to do more than read passively, you can get involved in a meaningful way.

Decisions are made by those who show up, will you?

OBVIOUS BIAS ALERT: The author of this post worked in the Fall of 20o9 and this summer for House Republican Leader John Boehner. Notwithstanding this fact, this article contains useful advice ensconced in a whimsical and yet powerful writing style.

Wait, let’s rewind a bit.

Pitzer President Laura Trombley and Robert Day '65.

In case you need to brush up on your Claremont Colleges history, here’s a little lesson: George Benson was the founding president of CMC.  Though he later helped out in the founding of both Harvey Mudd and Pitzer,  Benson seemed to be the embodiment of the ultimate CMCer.  Throughout his life, he was involved Los Angeles Republican party politics; he was even one of the original supporters of President Richard Nixon.  So why have our not-so-conservative neighbors chosen to honor Benson?

It turns out that Robert Day, CMC class of ’65 and former chair of CMC’s Board of Trustees, recently donated the $3 million for the renovation of Pitzer’s primary auditorium.   When given the choice, Day was the one that asked that the auditorium be named for Benson.  However, it does not seem that Day has abandoned his love for his alma mater and changed his allegiance to our northeastern brethren.   On the contrary, it seems that the move may have been entirely for the benefit of CMCers.  Rumors have begun to circulate that Day donated the Auditorium as a trade with Pitzer.   In exchange for the major gift, Pitzer would allegedly agree to allow the new Joint Science Building to be built in the lot across from the current building, right on the edge of CMC’s campus, on the plot of land that is currently the parking lot at 9th and Mills.  This would make the new structure just a stone’s throw from North Quad, and therefore very accessible to Claremont McKenna students. Though Pitzer had originally wanted the new project to be located further north, on a plot of land up towards Mudd, it seems more likely that the new building will be built much closer to CMC’s campus.

Interior of the new Benson Auditorium. Photo credit: Amy Jasper PZ '10

CMC’s VP of Alumni Relations, John Faranda, could not confirm the rumors that the donation was a buyoff. However, he did mention, “Robert [Day] is a very smart man, and we know he is very interested in helping science.”  In fact, it is part of Day’s family legacy.  Day is actually a relative of W.M. Keck, after whom the current Joint Science Center is named.   The W.M. Keck Foundation has provided funding for all sorts of science related projects, from the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii to USC’s Keck School of Medicine. In other words, Day is merely continuing his family tradition, albeit in a very hands-on manner.

In some ways, it appears that Day is the epitome of a CMC graduate.  He is an extremely savvy businessman who is using his expertise in the world and his monetary power to forward a cause he feels passionately about: the well-being of CMC students.  As for naming the auditorium after Benson, this is not uncalled for.  Much of the nomenclature around all five colleges is already intertwined.  In fact, Pitzer itself was named after Russell K. Pitzer, who provided one of the crucial initial donations to get Claremont McKenna off the ground.

Fundraising is not currently underway on the project, and it will probably be years before construction on the Joint Science Center Expansion officially begins.  Perhaps years down the road, CMC students can show gratitude to Day for his contributions to science at the Claremont Colleges and a shorter walk to class.

The concept is pretty simple, on its face. Each spring, at least two professors at two of the Claremont Colleges teach a course on the United States Congress. Each student in the courses plays a Senator. The classes meet in the evenings for a State of the Union Address, gather as committees to draft and report out legislation, and pass at least two bills during a floor session. This year Pomona students, representing the Democrats, faced off against Claremont McKenna Republicans in a test that made the healthcare struggle feel brief.

These colors always run

To be fair, the simulation has never been easy to execute. Just imagine putting a couple dozen type-A personalities, who are politically obsessed, in close quarters for four days. Havoc usually ensues. Just last year, ‘President Obama’ was locked in a bathroom and Harry Reid was ousted as majority leader. Another year, when the students were particularly dull, the faculty members (or ‘Simulation Gods’) decreed that the North Koreans had nuked an oil pipeline in Alaska.

This year’s simulation stayed true to Senate-style. The Senate was supposed to meet at 6:30 on Thursday to begin its floor session, and only two and a half hours later… nothing. At this point, the Simulation Gods announced they were “grumpy” and went to encourage the minority party, whose meeting had delayed the simulation, to venture forth and begin. Ultimately, the Simulation Gods managed to cajole the Senate into action through the use of their “capricious” power (their word, not mine), and by doling out proxy votes.

Things got interesting around 9:15, when Tea Party protesters stormed the Senate floor chanting “Kill the bill!” and “Down with problems!” Rowdy screams and chants of “USA!” and “The South will rise again” could be heard from a crowd gathered outside the chamber throughout the night.

Despite the commotion, the ‘Senate’ managed to pass numerous bills throughout the course of the evening, including landmark legislation such as “Subsidies for America’s Future,” which Senator Franken was overheard complaining about as “something we’ve never seen or heard of before.” Other measures considered included funds for clean coal and nuclear technology. An unusually grumpy Senator Harkin was overheard saying “I just don’t trust them,” presumably in reference to Republicans. So, much like the actual Senate, personal animosity played a role in the functioning— or lack thereof— of Claremont’s Senate.

Simulations are notoriously difficult to run well. Professor David Menefee-Libey (Congress God from Pomona) said, “I didn’t believe in this when I came here in 1989.” Past simulations he had participated in were “hokey,” but this simulation has a lot of merit. “I have alums who come back 20 years later” because of this simulation. It is “one of the most powerful educational experiences.”

Despite the quirky nature inherent in any simulation, the event provides a unique learning experience far closer to reality than most people would like to admit. In 1996 the ‘Senate’ passed a welfare reform bill which resembled the bill that President Clinton had vetoed the year before. During the debrief, Professor Menefee-Libey told his class that it was unrealistic to think the Senate would pass— or that the president sign— a bill which so closely resembled something he had previously opposed. Four months after the Claremont Senate passed welfare reform, the United States Senate followed suit, passing a bill that would become one of President Clinton’s signature accomplishments.

Claremont’s Congress is filled with the same indulgent pettiness, personal vendettas, and unavoidable distrust you might find roaming those marble halls in Washington, D.C. But this is not an extended soap opera— though it may seem like that at times. On what other college campus will you overhear students arguing passionately about the interpretation of Riddick’s Rules of Senate Procedure?

Assigning grades for such an endeavor, where secret deals are the norm and there is so much information to track, is a difficult task. At Pomona, students “don’t really get credit” for the simulation, according to Professor Menefee-Libey. But CMC’s Professor Pitney uses a three-pronged approach. First, Pitney “triangulates” information through observation and student leaks. He then assigns a paper on their simulation experiences, and on lessons learned. Finally, he uses anonymous peer evaluations, asking students to determine who performed the best.

Studying Congress, as if it did not have those features, defeats the point. Congress is not an abstraction, or a textbook creation for a comparative government class. It is a kingdom with 535 chiefs–and no, wiseass, D.C. and Guam don’t count. You cannot begin to understand Congress, just as you would be lost during the simulation, without learning the personalities and the politics of the players involved.

Indeed, as time has passed, life has begun to imitate art. Adam Kokesh CMC ’07 and Craig McPherson CMC ’06 are both alums of the simulation, playing Ted Kennedy and Pat Roberts respectively. Both are currently running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress with Professor Pitney remains the best class I have taken in my three years at CMC. The class is what it is in large part because of the simulation. So while you and your friends may well be worried about the State of TNC, consider for a moment the State of the Nation (both real and imagined). Consider the impact that practical learning can have on your college experience. Consider taking Congress.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, or DADT, was passed in 1993 by a Congress that had solid Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives, 258 Democrats as opposed to 176 Republicans, and the Senate, 57 Democrats opposite 43 Republicans. Bill Clinton had just won his first term as president. This was not an extreme right-wing government that put DADT in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. The Congress expresses in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that military service is not a right and that,

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

The last part is crucial in understanding why DADT was enacted. Military society is not civilian society. The rules that govern it must be different because the military is expected to do things the public isn’t, like fight a war. I went to my friend, teammate, and United States Marine, Eric Yingling, to inquire more into the strictness of military life. He stated:

“During my time on the east coast, we were required to go out shirts tucked in, belt, and slacks/nicer jeans at all times not in uniform. You couldn’t have ear piercings, tattoos visible above the neck or other ‘individualistic’ qualities. This is all for unit cohesion and stomping out the ‘individual.’ The military doesn’t want individuals nor does it really care about what you think– it wants people to get the job done. They have their rules, and everyone– gay, straight, or other– needs to abide by them and conform. There is no preferential treatment because you are straight or gay. There are even rules to how straight couples should act in public, and especially while in uniform. They are there for a reason, and it isn’t to ban gays. They are allowed to join, and serve (for the same selfless reasons anyone would want to serve, right?) but they don’t get a special marking on their dog tags next to blood type that says ‘gay’ or something. Just as I don’t get one that says ‘straight.’”

Eric was also kind enough to point out that the military enters into the sexual lives of all its personal, he pointed out a passage from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, that prohibits a certain type of sex.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The military culture is much different then mainstream society. In civil society, a person is not allowed to be restricted from work because they are disabled or have a defect, but in the military they must carefully chose their recruits. I know from personal experience that the United States Military is extremely selective in accepting recruits. I applied to West Point out of high school, earned a Congressional recommendation, but was denied by the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board, or DoDMERB, because I had corrective heart surgery. Later, I again tried to serve by earning a full scholarship from Army ROTC, but was again prevented from serving my country by DoDMERB due to a problem I had been born with. Eric had a similar story where the U.S. Army was delaying in allowing him to join because when he was twelve his doctor prescribed him a temporary inhaler (2 weeks use) to deal with bronchitis. Despite never having “any breathing issues or anything at all related in the 6 years following,” the U.S. Army was hesitant to recruit.

One must understand that DADT is not a ban of homosexuals serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels. If the military was not concerned with the morale and cohesion of its soldiers, wouldn’t that just be a little, well, queer?

First of all, any movement that brings Sarah Palin back into the spotlight is bad for the Republicans. Although her speech to the Tea Party national convention has generated very different reactions, it is undeniable that the speech has brought her back into the limelight of national politics. Palin may inspire a dedicated base of followers, but the broad electorate’s lack of confidence in her was revealed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 71% of Americans do not feel she is qualified to be president. Unfortunately for those wanting a Republican to win the White House in 2012, Nate Silver thinks Palin could win the Republican nomination for President. Given her performance in the 2008 campaign, President Obama must be praying for that outcome.

Another speaker at the Tea Party Nation convention is also toxic for the Republican brand: Tom Tancredo. The former Congressman from Colorado delivered an angry rant against immigrants. Bashing immigrants is not good for the Republican Party’s long-term political viability in a country with ever-increasing numbers of Latinos. If the Republicans want their relationship with the Latino community to resemble their relationship with the black community, Tancredo is the perfect man for the job.

Tea-partiers have already probably hurt the Republicans. They claim credit for forcing the moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race for New York’s 23^rd congressional district last year, which then allowed a Democrat to win a normally very safe Republican seat. They may be overstating their role in this electoral failure, but the fact remains that their brand of right-wing populism is a major political liability for the Republican Party. Winning the center is essential in American politics, but this will be extremely difficult if they are closely associated with self-described rightist counter-revolutionaries.

The political damage could get even worse for the GOP. Tea Party activists are even talking about running their own candidates in congressional elections! Indeed, Tea Party activists are currently preparing to field their own candidate to do battle for Harry Reid’s Senate seat. Given that the overwhelming majority of Tea Party activists would vote for a Republican in a two-way race, this development can only be described as a gift for Democrats.

The Republican Party may be able to prevent this vote splitting if it can successfully incorporate the Tea Party into the fold. After all, absorption within one of the major two parties has been the fate of most third party movements in American history. This task will not be easy, however, as the Tea Party movement is highly critical of the Republican Party as a whole for participating in the expansion of Big Government. Already, activists are becoming dismayed by the prospect of Palin hijacking the Tea Party movement.

I find the bizarreness of the Tea Party phenomenon a bit creepy. The Republican establishment should be absolutely terrified.

Most Birthers claim that Obama was born in Kenya, while others think his birth occurred in Indonesia.  Even though Obama has released a copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born on Oahu, these conspiracy theories continue to animate the fanatical right.

What is most surprising about these conspiracy theories is the number of relatively mainstream people willing to associate themselves with the Birthers or at least recognize the issue as a legitimate controversy.  One of CNN’s many reasons for dumping Lou Dobbs was his repeated raising of Birther issues.  More predictably, The Birthers have found audiences on conservative talk radio and conservative web sites such as Free Republic and WorldNetDaily.  The number of people who have serious doubts that Obama was born in the United States is shockingly high.  According to one poll, 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States or are unsure.  These numbers, however, ignore an important geographic disparity: doubt about Obama’s place of birth is far higher in the South than anywhere else in the country. In the South, only 47% of respondents said they believe Obama was born in the United States, with 30 % unsure and 23% convinced he’s foreign born.

Many Republican politicians find themselves in an uncomfortable position when it comes to Birther conspiracy theories.  On the one hand, the Birther movement kills the Republicans’ credibility among the vast majority of the population and Republicans.  At the same time,   Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican congressman from Delaware, was blindsided at a rally in July when a near-hysterical woman accused him of ignoring the “truth” that Obama was a citizen of Kenya.  Wanting to pander to the fringe without becoming entirely discredited by the lunatics, many Republicans have opted to align themselves only tangentially with the Birther movement.  For example, Republican congressman of John Campbell of California proposed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove they are “natural-born citizens.”  On MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewed Campbell and repeatedly asked him if he believed Obama was a natural-born citizen.  The extreme evasiveness of Campbell’s answers perfectly demonstrates his “wink-wink” strategy of secretly pandering to fringe elements of the conservative movement without having his reputation sullied by outright association.

As a final note to seniors still seeking employment, the Birthers are willing to throw down cash for investigations of Obama’s past.  Neil Sankey, a former member of Scotland Yard, has been hired by Birthers to investigate Obama’s personal history.  I know most CMC alums can’t match Sankey’s background, but perhaps “Topics in Forensic Science” has taught some desperate seniors enough to follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Ames.

Most pundits have taken the Hoffman-Scozzafava duel in NY-23—in which Hoffman, the Conservative, won endorsements from many political leaders including Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin, and Soczzafava, the Republican, ended up dropping out and endorsing the Democrat—as a sign that Republican voters are disillusioned with their current representatives who seem willing to use government rather than limit it, and that the party is gearing for a return to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility. But the return to first principles has already happened. Even though the internal debate is fierce, there is truly very little that separates the current reformist, Grand New Party Republicans from the traditional conservatives.

Reformist Republicans, who some might call “moderate Republicans,” want to use government policies to help the middle class, monitor only the most unseemly aspects of an otherwise free market, and promote strong families. This approach to public policy, however, is very similar to that of George W. Bush, who also wanted to use government for conservative ends. But President Bush used liberal means to promote conservative ends—providing federal funds for faith-based charities, expanding the Education Department to promote national accountability, and in general increasing government spending. There are some Bush era holdovers in Congress who will still think and act this way once in power, but most reformists wish to use conservative means to conservative ends.

The conservative way to use government is to create public policies that encourage individual liberty and personal responsibility. For the most part, this approach accepts that programs such as Medicare and Social Security aren’t going away. The question becomes how to make them work for conservatives. How do we maximize freedom, choice, and individual responsibility while maintaining a social safety net (or, to use a more fitting phrase, safety trampoline) that takes care of those in real need? Welfare reform was one of the greatest successes for such conservatives: it increased individual freedom and responsibility and reduced the size of government. But it also ensured that when you really need it, the government will be there to help you get back on your feet.

If the reformist Republicans—in short, those who want to use government, but in a conservative way, to help the middle class—had their way, the size of government would shrink dramatically and individual liberty would grow dramatically —there is little in their agenda with which traditional, limited-government conservatives would disagree. In education, students would have more choice in the form of vouchers or charter schools; in health care, individuals would have more control over their health decision through health savings accounts; in retirement policy, citizens would have more responsibility for their own savings.

When confronted with an actual policy issue, most first-principles conservatives would come to the same point of view as these reformist Republicans. The difference, then, for most Republicans is not in ideology, and it’s not even in the details—it’s in the message. Traditional conservatives would like a return to limited government—but they do not explain how limited government will help you or your neighbor. They just want it on principle. Most reformist Republicans believe in these same principles, even if they don’t go about reassuring the conservatives; but at least they try to explain how their principles will translate to real policies that help real people. The reformists believe in a government that helps people help themselves. It doesn’t just do things for them, as many Democrats would want; but it is there and it does help.

Traditional conservatives will invoke the presidency of Ronald Reagan as an example of first principles winning the day. But what made Reagan so remarkable was not only his unwavering belief in first principles, but also his ability to explain why those principles were good for America and good for public policy. Reagan, as he himself said, did not want a return to the past; rather, he wanted a past way of looking at new things. He wanted to apply first principles to the policy problems of the day.

The only way for Republicans to inspire voters is to learn to communicate how their principles will translate to a better life for the ordinary citizen. When Republicans advocate tax cuts, school vouchers, or decreases in government spending, they must argue how each of those policies promotes the very same goals many liberals desire: social justice, equality of opportunity, more and better access to health care. And Republican policies manage to do so while maintaining individual liberty and limited government, principles the Democrats often sacrifice but which are essential for maintaining a self-governing people.

Republicans can achieve more permanent victories in 2010 if they can express this message. To do so, the conservative and reformist Republicans must come together and realize that their principles are—for the most part—identical. What both are missing is a great communicator who can convey to the electorate and convince them why these principles are good for themselves, their communities, and their country.

If the recent controversy over Bob McDonnell’s senior thesis is any indication, public figures will be subject to increasingly thorough vetting of their academic careers and papers in the future and everything we write, from Facebook notes to essays, will be fair game.

We’ve heard cautionary tales of College students not getting jobs due to idiotic Facebook pictures.  But this has a simple solution – remove the pictures.  Removing does no harm and keeping offers no help.

But in raising controversial issues and voicing opinions, there is a harm associated with timidity- the campus environment and conversation is not as engaging.  Say what you will about Charles Johnson, CMC ’11, but at least he has the balls to write what he thinks and the campus discussion, by and large, is better for it.

And so I’ve been thinking whether or not to officially brand myself as a “Democrat.”  Yes, I’m politically left of center but not by much (I’ve argued at CAP conferences in favor of school vouchers and against EFCA…).  While I run the blog for the Port Side, with the exception of Jonathan I’m easily the most conservative student on staff.  And so calling myself a Democrat?  That seems sketchy.

The advantages to not being branded are obvious – you seem to not have partisan entanglements and appear to come from a place of “rationality” and “moderation.”   In future job pursuits I wouldn’t be disqualified for my political beliefs.  Though one of my Facebook networks is “Obama for America,” I know enough moderates and even Republicans who worked on the campaign and voted for the man that I’m okay with it.  But recently I was appointed Platform Director for the California Young Democrats.

Why did I accept?  Because in the future I’d like to work in Government, and if I have to pick a team I pick not-Republican.  That leaves me with the Dems.  And so I’ve been sitting on my new email address, platform@youngdems.org, for some time.  If I join the Facebook network, I’m a Democrat.  Anyone searching my name will see that.

But maybe the path of least association isn’t the best path.  So I’ll be a Democrat – does that mean I can’t look rationally at an issue?  Does that mean I can’t be measured and moderate?  I would hope not.

So for those interested in potentially blogging, either for the Port Side or the Claremont Conservative, and for those who want to write controversial opinions but who are afraid of the google-search – sack up.  Down the line it probably won’t hurt to have an opinion so long as you can rationally defend it.  And if times change and public opinion changes, hopefully your employer will give you a chance to explain your thinking.  If not, he’s probably a douche and you probably don’t want to work for him anyway.  In the end, there are worse things to be disqualified for than having an opinion (and even when your opinion is unpopular, you can still raise $200,000 + in cash-on-hand overnight).

It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies.   This job is harder than people think.  Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool.  That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.

An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time.  We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.”  (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved.  I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)

Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.  How else do you explain articles like this?  Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up?  For some reason these people want to relive that.  They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse.  It’s immature and childlike.

What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:

“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn

With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle.  You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and   wrote this.  No one cares about how you and Andrew work together.  You’re supposed to act professionally.  The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI.  This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.

I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:

“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”

A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds.  I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded.  Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.

Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging.  You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

P.S. Refreshments (pizza?) will be served.

(Photo Credit: LA Times)