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)

The Claremont Political Union was created as a confluence of the Claremont Democrats and Claremont Republicans clubs, and CMC’s two partisan newspapers, the Claremont Port Side, and the Claremont Independent. According to President of the Claremont Democrats, Elaine Maloney (SC ‘08), “People might be involved in politics, but might not be allegiant to a party. But this is a good place to start for the same goal.” Mike Whatley (CMC ‘11), Vice-President of Operations for the Claremont Republicans, echoed this goal: “It is a good thing to come together, and hold events together in a friendly environment.”

Yet, the debate over the choice of TV channel almost turned the event hostile. A half-dozen Republicans charged the party’s organizers with partisanship because they chose CNN over Fox News. To appease both sides, the CPU decided to switch between channels every 30 minutes. Yet, Mr. Whatley told me that “CNN was better anyway.”

By 6 PM, The Hub was full of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and voting in California was still open for another two hours. Sometime after 6 p.m., CNN made a projection—Barack Obama had won Delaware. The crowd of Obama supporters was glowing and cheering. On the other side, the response was more hushed during Republican projections—when John McCain won New York, the crowd remained mostly unmoved with a few scattered claps and boos.

None of the organizations in the CPU endorsed a candidate as a club, and are now focused on future events and funding. They are planning an “unconventional partisan debate” during Alumni Weekend, and are seeking funding as an organization (a consortium within a consortium?), instead of using funds from each member club. This time, club funds bought sets of red, white, and blue balloons and a handy delegate chart that was much easier to follow than that of the Situation Room at CNN.

Breaking from the usual CMC party scene, the clubs did not buy alcohol with their funds. “No one here is looking to get smashed on a Tuesday night,” said Ms. Maloney. Still, a few students improvised with Chardonnay (Obama supporters).

In CMC’s community of political involvement and partisanship, many students loved the bipartisan atmosphere. Molly Doyle (CMC ‘09) said, “I’m just so excited to be here. This event would only happen at CMC.”

Read more about voting laws and tips if this is your first time.

Read more about why your vote is important in California (proportional representation + a very close race, etc.)

Also, come hang out in The Hub from 5 PM to 11 PM to watch as the Super Tuesday results come in (hosted by the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges, the Claremont College Republicans, the Claremont Portside, and the Claremont Independent).

There’s a reason why Newsweek named this college “Hottest for Election Year.”