Left or Right?

It seems impossible in this day and age to escape the politics of our nation.  Currently, there is no escape from the election campaigns that seem to be on every TV and computer that we see.  And what we do see is generally a depressing and bitter fist fight between the left and the right.

The democrats versus the republicans fight is a loud one, filled with anger, frustration, and some of the worst polarization to date.  In our two party system, we see the Democrats and Republicans battle it out in debates, on TV and with ads.  As blatantly obvious as the fight between these two parties is, this country is seeing a growing middle ground that is rarely heard from or represented.  

The fabled independent seems to be as rare as bipartisanship in politics.  Nowhere do we here of the Independent candidate.  The last true independent candidate for president was, according to Biography.com, Ross Perot who ran as an independent in 1992.  Yet, unbeknownst to most Americans, a new political power is rising, and they are the independents in America.

Contrary to belief, the two main parties are actually smaller than people think.  Gallup polls reports that only 26% of Americans are registered Republicsns.  This number has slowly come down over the years.  Party loyalty, especially among the Republicans is becoming a problem for the party.

The Democratic party is also suffering losses in party membership.  Gallup Polls  reports that the Democratic party has only a 30% membership.  These numbers are extremely surprising given that our country is split on any given issue two ways.  That leaves the question of what this is the purpose and importance of this growing middle ground.

The independents make up approximately 43% of all voters in the United States according to Gallup Polls.  Much of the reason for the "decline in identification with both parties in recent years comes as dissatisfaction with government has emerged as one of the most important problems facing the country".  Unfortunately, the satisfaction with government performance is at an all time low.  In a different Gallup Poll, 65% of all Americans are unsatisfied with the United States government and it's action.  This explains the recent trend of party dissatisfaction.  

However with the with the downfall of huge party alliances, we are seeing a growing importance of the independent voters in elections across the country.  The simple reason is that they are numerically superior.  Candidates cannot win elections without catering to this fast growing group.  This holds significant promise for the future of our country. Previously the candidates simply catered to the left or the right as most of their potential voting base identified with either of the ideologies.  

Neither side can win an election purely by appealing to their own party.  For candidates this means that they must tap the diverse group of independent that do not toe the party line.  Therefore, they are forced to better represent voters and have a more moderate tone.  In elections such as the current presidential election this presents immense challenges for candidates.  During the primaries candidates are need to appeal to their party hard liners.  This involves them show casing their either liberal or conservative side. Once nonminated, however, they must rebrand themselves as the more moderate option as they are now trying to win over the independent vote that decides the election.  

We do not often see or hear the independent voice.  We only see the polarization between the left and right that seems to dominate the media and many other faucets of our lives.  Yet the growing independents are highlighting the middle ground and discontent in this country with the current state of political affairs. Their voice that combines the political thoughts of the left and right are an important step in breaking free from the ideological deadlock and bringing forth a new era of productivity and political satisfaction.  

Whose Life Matters?

In my past three blog posts I have selected a polarizing issue within the United States, and analyzed it.  By doing so, I hope to layout the two polar ends of the spectrum, and then highlight and explain the middle ground stance that is often not covered by media or commonly discussed.  

Over the the past few years, a string of police shootings and arrests that ended in the deaths of blacks have caused significant commotion and anger within the United States.  The cases such as Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray have received huge media coverage and even larger controversy.  As a result of their deaths, and the deaths of others, the tactics and training of our nations' police forces has come under considerable question.  

The deaths naturally sparked outrage not only from the Black community, but also the nation at large.  As a result, large scale protests and backlash against the handling of these cases popped up quickly across the nation.  In 2012, the movement known as "Black Lives Matter" according to their website, "was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin's murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder"(black lives matter.com).

Since its' creation, the movement has been a powerful force in advocating for an increase in awareness of so called police brutality and the deaths of blacks.  In their own words, they are "an ideological and political intervention in a world where Blacks are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise" (blacklivesmatter.com).  They advocate for the equality of blacks and whites in the American society.  They spend a considerable amount of time and resources advocating against what they call police brutality and helping represent blacks in court and help with legal processes.

The rally cry "Black Lives Matter" has been echoed across the country, yet despite their prevalence and popularity, there is another segment of society that is completely agains the Black Lives matter movement.  Much of the criticism against the movement is scattered and not specific to a certain well formed group or organization.  Former presidential candidate formally rebuked the Black Lives Movement for "bullying people"(Salon.com).  Another strong opponent of the movement is Sheriff David Clarke.  According to media matters.com, he was quoted saying, "there is no police brutality in America"(media matters.org), and called the Black Lives Matter movement "garbage" that advocates, "the overthrow of our legally constituted government"(media matters.org).

Another opponent of the movement are portions of the police forces in the United States.  The quote "Blue Lives Matter" has become an oppositional slogan to combat the Black Lives Matter that many officers see as racist and misdirected.  MSNBC writes, "The 'Blue Lives Matter' campaign appears to be spreading, promoted by police unions in response to a series of ambush killings of police officers".  
The slogan "white lives matter" has also appeared in an attempt to combat the Black Lives Matter movement.

Here we see two distinct sides that generally oppose each other for a variety of different reasons.  Mainly, however, it is simply a lack of mutual understanding.  The different sides do not see the validity behind their opponents' argument.  Despite all of the chaos, hatred, and clash of protesting, there is a clear middle ground in this argument.  Oprah Winfrey was quoted saying, "What I'm looking for is some kind of leadership to come out of this to say, ''This is what we want.  This has to change, and these are the steps that we need to take to make these changes, and this is what we're willing to do to get it"' (The Washington Post).

In this middle ground that is to most common sense, all lives matter.  Each and every life is of equal worth and dignity.  Brutality is never acceptable and should be punished harshly.  While most police officers are law abiding, there is the inevitable portion that do utilize brutality.  Equally as important, police officers deserve the respect and cooperation of officers.  At the end of the day, complying with an officer will most likely prevent escalation of force for both sides.

It is difficult to see this middle ground as it is clouded by the loud protests and angry cries from both polar ends.  However the majority of the population would simply agree life matters.  No matter what, life should be valued and protected.












http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/ben_carson_slams_sickening_black_lives_matter_movement_for_bullying_people/
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/26/fox-regular-david-clarke-black-lives-matter-is/206416
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/another-black-lives-matter-rebuttal-stirs-controversy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/24/i-was-a-civil-rights-activist-in-the-1960s-but-its-hard-for-me-to-get-behind-black-lives-matter/

The 2016 Election

There are two things you don't talk about on a date, religion and politics.  Why? Because generally these topics divide our nation like no other.  Not only do politics divide, but they cause massive rifts in the population.  The election for the highest office in the United States is the pinnacle of this conflict.  The 2016 presidential election has been quite entertaining as always.  A constant stream of back and forth banter between both party's candidates has inevitably split the nation.

This election cycle is remarkably different than most.  In prior elections such as 2012 presidential election, most candidates toed the party line.  The most popular candidates from both parties were the normal ideologies that were generally the same.  While the country was divided between reelecting President Obama or electing Mitt Romney, both candidates could not be considered extreme ideologically.  In other words, the disunity in regards to the election was quite typical.  2016 has brought a very different election.

Apart from the abnormality of the sheer number of Republican candidates, the election has been dominated by two extreme candidates: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  The pure fact is that these two candidates are political opposites that are much more ideological than their fellow candidates.  These two have dominated much of the media attention.  Donald Trump has been very outspoken, and therefore has gained a large percentage of the media, while Bernie Sanders has gained a large following for his anti establishment campaign.  If we as media consumers and voters simply looked at the media's coverage of the election, our view would be greatly skewed.

Donald Trump was a well known figure prior to the election.  He had previously mulled over running for president during the 2012 election.  He is a well known figure due to his vast wealth and TV shows such as Celebrity Apprentice.  Gallup Polls found that he was 91% familiar to the United States population.  Currently, Donald Trump leads the GOP field, having won three  states in a row; New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (BBC).

His angry comments and willingness to say anything and everything regardless of the consequences has made him extremely popular among many Republicans.  However his stances on Syrian immigrants and the Mexican border have gained him enemies across both parties.  However his wins are deceiving.  A huge percentage of the population, not just registered Democrats, dislike Donald Trump.  According to Gallup polls, "At this point (two-week average through Jan. 27), 33% of Americans view Trump favorably and 60% unfavorably."  With his stunning success in the primaries, these numbers are not clearly represented in regards to the results.  

Bernie Sanders is on the other extreme end of the political spectrum.  As a Vermont Senator, he was relatively little known across the country.  He has quickly become very popular among young voters who enjoy his anti-establishment image.  He has already won the Iowa primary, as well as the New Hampshire election.  He is currently in a neck and neck battle with Hillary Clinton.  

Many voters across the country do not take to Bernie Sanders and his admittedly socialist views.  His proposals to raise taxes on the highest tax bracket has raised alarm.  He has also made headlines for proposing free or reduced college.  In addition he also supports raising the minimum wage across the United States.  According to Gallup Polls, "As voting begins in the 2016 presidential primary, suddenly Bernie Sanders, once castigated as a long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, has the edge over Hillary Clinton in net favorability among".  In the most recent poll conducted by Gallup, Bernie Sanders is polling 53% among democrats.  

These two candidates represent a huge amount of controversy and media coverage.  Their extreme views and words in the case of Donald Trump distort the truth that most of the country favors other more ideologically moderate candidates such as Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio.  As always the middle ground seems to hide the actual opinions of the nation as a whole.






http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35647126

Female service

The military generally garners considerable controversy in many of the moves it makes.  We see a nationwide disagreement in the way the United States military operates and where it goes.  In a social sense, we see the problems and conflicts of society become a true mess for the military.  Issues such as openly serving homosexuals have divided the military and come to national attention.  One current issue in the military is female service.

Women have been in the military officially since the Women's Armed Services Integration Act in 1948.  Since the act was passed by congress, women have quickly climbed the military ladder.  In 1976, women were allowed to enter the armed services academies, and in 1991, women were allowed to enter combat zones, though they were under strict orders not to be engaged in combat.

Today, approximately 14.5 percent of all active duty service members are women.  The growing number of women in the military led the United States government to allow women full access to all military positions in all branches in 2013.

Currently, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has set the deadline of full integration for women in all roles including special operations.  According to military.com, "In less than two months, about 220,000 jobs never before open to women will be potential new landing spots".  However the decision has met considerable backlash from both sides.  

Two obvious sides have emerged in the fight for female inclusion.  On one side there are the supporters who see this move as one that makes the military a more inclusive entity that is strengthened through equality.  The other side is extremely against the move, citing the performance standards and the importance of maintaining the strength of the military in combat.

In recent years, supporters of full female integration have cited the prevalence of females that inadvertently ended up in combat during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.  Women such as SGT. Leigh Hester who killed multiple enemy combatants after her convoy was attacked were proof that women could operate in combat environments.

Furthermore supporters see women as having an integral role in combat roles.  This argument is extremely valid as female service members are invaluable in gaining intelligence from muslim women, a job which only they can perform.  This is an extremely important role as the current method of warfare in the middle east involves winning the hearts and minds of the civilian populations.  They see the slow integration as the purposeful dragging of feet by military officials, particularly the Marines.

The military has done multiple studies that females work better together, and are better at solving problems and thinking critically.  Another prevailing thought its that women give an importance balance and help keep the integrity of good recruits of volunteers.

The opposition is fairly set on the argument of performance.  Most of the criticism lies in the fact that most women cannot meet the standards that are set for males in combat roles.  The fitness levels needed are non negotiable, and any change in these to allow women would erode the capabilities of the combat units.

Unit cohesion has also played a large role in the backlash against females in combat.  In trials run by the United States, mixed gender units did not perform as well as segregated units.  The trust and teamwork simply was not present.  The military is a very traditional setting, and for many males, female combat soldiers are unwelcome and distrusted.

Overall, especially the Marines, there is a slow and begrudging response to the integration as Army Secretary feels it is a rushed plan, "full integration will likely take several years, both to adjust the culture and to grow individual skills". 

The military as a whole is divided on the issue of female service.  With the politics and policies of gender on the front page of our news, the integration has become embroiled in politics.  Despite the looming April 1st deadline, the integration will not be complete in time.  Until further planning and research is completed, the argument against female combat service due to physical performance will justifiably questioned.  








http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/10/women-combat-jobs-congress-generals-pentagon-leaders/79876228/

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume7/images/nov/women_military_timeline.pdf

If You're not with Me, You're Against Me

One of the few things we as a nation can agree on is that there are polarizing issues in this country.  National issues that divide the population are on the front page of every newspaper, headlining every news broadcast and talk show, and occupying the conversations we have in our daily lives.  Its a full menu to choose from.  In every area of society there is an issue that causes extreme friction among people, whether it involves civil rights, racism, foreign policy, or medical care.  We are a nation at odds.


An issue at the forefront that has garnered considerable media coverage and conversation is the second amendment.  Few topics involve such raw emotion than those that pertain to firearms.  Its no wonder either as the New York Times reports that from 2001 to 2014, there were over 160 mass shootings that claimed the lives of over 480 people.  This has led to a large percentage of the population to call for some sort of action to combat the growing number of firearm related fatalities.  This however has been met with considerable opposition from the second amendment supporters.

Gun owners and other second amendment supporters feel that these issues are separate from them as the vast majority consider themselves to be law abiding.   Fearing gun control laws or the complete seizure of firearms, they engage in strong rhetoric and protests.

It is estimated that there are over 310 million guns in the United States, and that number is growing steadily.  A study conducted by The Washington Post estimates that approximately 32% of Americans own one or more firearms.  With these statistics growing rapidly, it becomes obvious that gun ownership is an important part of American culture.

There are two conventional or proposed main viewpoints regarding firearms.  On the one side, there are those that call for restrictions and question the extent of the second amendment and what it applies to.  Then there are the second amendment supporters and gun owners who want to protect their rights.  It is important to note, however, that there is in fact a middle ground that is relatively hidden from public perception, despite the fact that it encompasses a large portion of American views.

The media often depicts a black and white picture on gun control.  The poll questions and topics on all forms of media presented to Americans usually ask if they are for or against gun control.  This, in effect, is an example of a false dichotomy.  There are only two options provided when more exist.  While there are the radicals on both sides of the issue, the majority of the population is much more centered.

The problem regarding the opinions on gun control revolve around the words at the center of the argument.  For citizens on both sides the words "gun control" mean different things.  For some, it means that the government is trying to take away all firearms.  Others find that this simply means putting basic restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill individuals.

A poll conducted in 2013 by Pew Research found that 81% of Americans favored expanded background checks for firearm purchases.  Another poll conducted in 2015 by the Gallup polling organization found that 72% of people felt that a law that would restrict gun ownership to only police and authorized personnel should not be enacted.  Gallup also found that 86% of people supported universal background checks for all gun purchases using a national database.

It is true that there are varying opinions on gun control.  When the topic of automatic firearms and large capacity magazines are discussed, the conversation does become more polarized.  That aside, it is evident that the citizens of the United States are not as polarized as we led to believe.  Groups such as the NRA or Moms demand Action for Gun Sense in America take the flowing emotions revolving shootings and gun control and polarize them.

We as a people are led to believe that there is a side supporting gun control and a side against it, with no middle ground.  When the facts and opinions are broken down and analyzed, we are still a nation split on the issue, but far less than we believe.