Justice Scalia's Rant Misses the Point on Same-Sex Marriage

I couldn’t help but notice the stark contrast in reactions to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in two landmark gay marriage cases.  On one side we saw jubilant celebrations as a long-denied civil right was finally granted to same-sex couples in California, and the dignity and value inherent in loving gay relationships were boldly affirmed in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The other side was characterized by anguished and bitterly defeated anti-gay marriage Republicans and conservative Christians who condemned the decisions as unholy attacks on traditional marriage and a threat to society. Even the supremely arrogant Justice Antonin Scalia couldn’t resist unleashing his own hostile views in his caustic dissent:
“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.”

Besides being an outspoken advocate for the losing side, Scalia’s rant offers clear evidence that the Right just simply doesn’t get it when it comes to gay marriage. Scalia is correct in asserting that defending traditional marriage is not the same as anti-gay bigotry, and it’s wrong to assume such views to be the motivation of every opponent of same-sex marriage.  However, the major flaw unpinning his argument is thinking that religious-based assertions to uphold the definition of traditional marriage is a legitimate basis to deny extending marriage equality to those who don’t subscribe to it.

In other words, both viewpoints are NOT equally defensible from a social equality and civil rights standpoint. Same-sex marriage doesn’t in any way infringe upon the right or desire of heterosexuals to pursue marriage -- and despite opponents’ empty claims to the contrary -- will have no impact on those unions. However, efforts by opponents of gay marriage to ban, restrict or deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry represent a substantial infringement. 

As a society, we understand the value of social and cultural norms, but a strong belief in tradition is not sufficient grounds to justify unequal or unjust treatment of a class of citizens under the law. Republicans and Christian conservatives vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage either pretend not to grasp this basic point or are so blinded by their own narrow beliefs that they choose to disregard it, which is why they are losing the fight against gay marriage.

Despite the Right’s ideological resistance to change, cultures do evolve -- as do long-held attitudes, traditions and beliefs.  If they didn’t, gay Americans wouldn’t be allowed to serve openly in today’s U.S. military; interracial couples wouldn’t be allowed to wed; African Americans and women would be prevented from voting; and the unjust and immoral practice of racial segregation would still be the shameful law of the land. 

The goal of affirming equality for all citizens is a universal principle that must always trump other narrow religious and ideological interests, no matter how passionately and intensely advocated. That’s a point on which even conservatives can all agree, whether they choose to personally accept gay marriage or not.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s Exclusion Message Rightly Backfired

CEO Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie & Fitch experienced what mirrored a Mitt Romney moment when, in a unguarded moment during an interview seven years ago, he spoke openly and honestly about the consumer market his clothes are intended to attract:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool-kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kids with a great attitude and a lot of friends.  A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes] and they can’t belong.  Are we exclusionary? Absolutely!”  

A popular youth brand bragging about the fact that it’s exclusionary, implying that unattractive geeks can't wear its clothes? Honest perhaps, but it’s an off-putting marketing message that has sparked a major backlash against the chain. The retailer’s apologies have yet to quell the firestorm of condemnation from offended teens, celebrities and others.  Is the outrage justified, or is it a case of modern political correctness run amuck? 

First, let’s acknowledge that what Jeffries said, while candid, was also painfully obvious.  One look at Abercrombie’s over-sexualized advertising featuring athletically fit and handsome young male jocks, and there’s no mistaking who the chain is marketing to.  There’s also nothing controversial about a retailer or advertiser targeting a particular niche market of consumers; what retailer doesn‘t?  But what Jefferies said during his ill-expressed moment of candor went beyond merely defining his brand and needlessly offended consumers his brand doesn‘t cater to.  

In today’s more culturally diverse and inclusive society, it’s not good policy nor good business to promote ideas of exclusion or to suggest that some people aren’t welcome or “don’t belong.”  Besides, why turn away consumers who may aspire to be the people a brand celebrates?

Imagine retailer Victoria Secret saying that they only market their stylish lingerie to thin, beautiful women who like to feel sexy.  Implied message: fat, ugly women should look elsewhere. But, in truth, some fat women may want to feel sexy, too.  And if they are willing to spend money on clothes that aren’t intended for them, so be it. The retailer makes a profit either way.

The flap over the comments by Abercrombie’s CEO isn’t about suggesting that apparel retailers should cater to every type of consumer in the marketplace, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic, as well as being adverse to the ideals of free market enterprise.  The flap, however, is about denouncing a corporate message that seemed to insensitively dismiss or demean “the wrong type” of desired customers. 

Efforts by teen groups trying to pressure the chain to expand it sizes or tone down its sexualized advertising are perhaps well-intended but misguided.  Abercrombie forces no one to shop at it stores.  Teens offended by its brand or marketing message can simply choose to shop elsewhere, or even encourage other teens to boycott the store if they choose.

Yes, all clothing styles aren’t made for all body types and sizes.  And we have all seen people who fail to grasp that concept in their fashion choices. But Abercrombie as well as other apparel retailers are well-advised to let consumers decide for themselves what clothes they “belong in.” 

Exclusion is an unwise marketing message for almost any retailer, and Abercrombie’s seemingly out-of-touch CEO now knows why, as some shoppers will likely “exclude” his store from places they prefer to shop.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California.  He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

The Good, the Bad and the Lame From 2012

With the dawning of a new year fast approaching, it’s worth taking a look back at some of the people, personalities and events that made 2012 memorable. While some individuals (winners) merit praise, others (losers) merely earned our collective contempt.  Here’s my list of some top standouts.

The Winners:

Barack Obama
Obama is by far the most obvious winner of the year having survived a hard-fought presidential campaign in a tough economy to be re-elected to a second term.  He is now posed to become one of the most consequential Democratic presidents in history. His decisive electoral college sweep left Mitt Romney and the GOP stunned and confused.

Bill Clinton
Bill stepped back into the national spotlight in grand rhetorical style with his delivery of a truly awesome Democratic convention speech, by far the best of both party conventions.  He in no small measure deserves considerable credit for helping to get Obama re-elected, and Obama knows it.

Gay Marriage
The cause for marriage equality had a great year in 2012 with the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage expanding to nine total.  The most significant victory came from three states (Maine, Maryland, Washington) where voters, for the first time, supported ballot initiatives on marriage equality. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the decision striking down California’s Prop 8 as unconstitutional, full nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage is likely less than a year away.

Nate Silver & Polling
Numbers expert Nate Silver was bashed by the Right for daring to offer sound polling-based predictions about the likelihood of an Obama presidential election victory. His methods and pitch-perfect predictions prevailed, making conservatives look whiny and foolish. Election polling isn’t magic; it’s a scientific means of collecting opinion data on a large group.  When done correctly, it’s often surprisingly accurate.  The simple truth: Politicians who whine about polling results are usually the ones who know they are losing.

David Axelrod and David Plouffe
These two Obama campaign gurus deserve high praise for their sheer campaign genius.  They helped forge a formidable re-election strategy, voter coalition and ground operation that dwarfed any well-financed efforts by Romney and the GOP.

The Losers:

Mitt Romney
Romney learned the tough lesson that having lots of money is no guarantee of election victory, no matter how long you‘ve been running for high office.  Also, having a strong business resume is no substitute for a lack of political integrity and personal authenticity. This political phony struggled from the outset of this campaign to connect with voters. In the end, they wisely rejected him and his disingenuous attempt to recast himself as a moderate late in the campaign.

Lindsay Lohan
Enough already likely sums up what most people probably think of Lohan and her endless saga of reckless and self-destructive behavior. My advice: Go to rehab; see a shrink; just please stop tormenting us with your celebrity antics. And by the way, even with a good makeup job, Elizabeth Taylor she is certainly not.

Rush Limbaugh
This always obnoxious rightwing windbag reached a new low when he crudely and reprehensively denigrated college student Sandra Fluke because of her advocacy for women’s contraceptive rights.  Limbaugh’s toxic rhetoric pollutes the air with angry hate-filled drivel that does a disservice to both his party and our body politic. It is long past time for this arrogant and polarizing loudmouth to leave the stage.

People Who Camp Out at Apple Stores
I mean, really? It’s just a phone people -- get a life. 

Tea Party
Thankfully, after a over-hyped rise to power in 2010, the tea seemed to have cooled for this bunch of renegade leaders. Their unwillingness to embrace sensible compromise did nothing but make efforts to get things done in Congress all the more difficult.  But in the aftermath of having suffered big loses in the November election, this party and all its extremist nonsense may be over.

Religious Right
This once powerful Christian conservative group doesn’t seem to pack the punch it used to for the GOP. As a key constituency of the Republican base, candidates still kneel at the group’s alter for electoral support.  But with issues such as gay-marriage clearly on the rise, the group has lost its persuasive voice on social issues. Figuring out how to straddle the line between appealing to more socially liberal young voters while satisfying the demands for moral purity from their religious base will be a difficult task for GOP candidates. All I can say is, “good luck with that.”

Nancy Grace
As HLN’s queen of exploiting human tragedy for entertainment Nancy Grace is herself a disgrace.  Her characteristic faux outrage and overbearing tone is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for shameless sensationalism. Viewers have heard enough from this phony drama queen and her tabloid news antics.  HLN needs to eliminate her show and give that time slot to someone of far greater value.

Karl Rove
Rove was once considered to be a master Republican political strategist for the electoral wins he helped orchestrate for the GOP under George Bush. Today, he has become a overrated has-been who raised a campaign fortune but still failed to deliver a GOP election victory. His embarrassing Fox News meltdown on election night when he protested Ohio being called for Obama showed just how out of touch he was with political reality. Rove once audaciously proclaimed his goal to achieve a permanent Republican majority in Congress. And just like this plan to regain GOP control of the U.S. Senate, things didn't work out so well.

Chick-fil-A
After bad publicity from a much-publicized boycott in response to views expressed by the fast-food chain’s owner opposing gay marriage, the restaurant learned the hard way the value of keeping personal views separate from company business interests, which is selling a product that turns a profit and not moralizing about social issues.   

GOP and Math: Their Problems Go Beyond Poll Number Blindness

Much has been mentioned since the results of the recent presidential election about the GOP’s problem with math. More specifically, about the apparent willingness among many conservatives to blatantly shun polls numbers and other data before the election that had pointed to the high probability of a President Obama win. Many conservative pundits and commentators, especially those broadcast on the Fox News Channel, asserted with unflinching certitude, even gleeful self-assurance that Mitt Romney would “win in a landslide!”  Of course, Obama’s commanding Electoral College sweep proved those predictions to be not just wrong, but dead wrong.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow believes the party’s shock and denial about the election was the consequence of living in a Republican bubble fueled by a rightwing spin machine. She noted that the election result “was not magic; it was just math -- math that was completely invisible to the political right.”

But the GOP’s problems with arithmetic goes well beyond absurdly false predictions and partisan skewing of poll numbers. Conservatives made fundamental miscalculations across the board about the electorate, political issues and changing cultural attitudes in the country. The party’s challenge moving forward will require a major re-calculation of the political landscape that today is quite different than one the party has long relied on to win elections.

Having often been indifferent to the concerns of minority voters, the GOP got a rude awakening by the sheer growth of Latino, black and Asian voters as a percentage of the overall electorate this year. And even more shocking was the astounding level of support these group gave to Democrats over Republicans: More than 90 percent of blacks and nearly three-quarters of both Latinos and Asians voted for Obama.

But this demographic trend showing a burgeoning minority presence in the country, particularly among Latinos, has been apparent for years. The GOP, with the exception of George W. Bush who received about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, simply chose to ignore it. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer suggested two years ago that the GOP’s challenge with Latino voters was more of a long-term problem for the party and not an immediate concern - again another gross miscalculation.

And like the Latino vote, the GOP completely misread the emerging youth vote, which overwhelmingly backed Obama by 60 percent, a slightly larger margin than in 2008.  The flawed assumption was that young voters, who had expressed some disappointment with Obama, wouldn‘t come out in mass in 2012.  The fact that young voters don’t have a strong history of voting consistently may have also aided the GOP’s flawed assumptions. But as with minority voter turnout, their political calculation completely missed the mark.

On the economy, Republicans made another political blunder.  Mitt Romney staked his entire campaign on pitching voters a gloomy narrative about the state of the U.S. economy under Obama, claiming it was worst than it was four years ago. His calculation was that a "bad" economy meant certain election defeat for an incumbent president. The problem, however, was that his dubious claims didn't square with current economic reality: a declining unemployment rate, consumer confidence at a five-year high, increasing housing prices and improvement in economic growth. Sometimes reality simply trumps political spin.

On the social issue front, the GOP suffered yet another miscalculation.  Despite polls that had been showing a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward gay marriage acceptance, with a slight majority now supporting it, GOP opposition persisted.  Conservatives even touted the fact that whenever same-sex marriage was put before voters, it was always defeated.  And that held true until Maine and Maryland and Washington all approved marriage equality for same-sex couples on Election Day. The result offered more evidence of an American society holding ever more moderate views on gay marriage and other social issues. This shift is being fueled in large measure by a more socially liberal young generation. But while this seismic cultural shift continues, the GOP clings to a rigidly conservative base and outdated approach to some social issues that fails to resonate.

So yes, the GOP has a math problem.  But the issue isn’t just that they sometimes choose to ignore inconvenient facts such as polls; it’s that too many things they advocate and represent as a party just doesn‘t seem to add up. Conservative strategist and commentator Matthew Dowd said it best in describing the current GOP’s challenge as a “Mad Men party in a Modern Family America.”

“Mad Men” is of course a reference to the popular AMC drama set in 1960s America where white men ruled and women were relegated to being stereotypical housewives. ABC’s successful “Modern Family” depicts a prominent married gay couple raising an adopted daughter. The former is a throwback to a time long past and the latter captures family life in today’s more tolerant society.

If the GOP expects its party’s fortunes to improve it must start by re-calculating how to adapt its message and policies to align with this new cultural and political reality. Only time will tell if their changes add up to any value by the next election.

George Will's Shameless Racial Theory of Obama Presidency

I have long regarded conservative columnist George Will as a rational and thoughtful intellectual, but both of those attributes were betrayed by his shameless recent Wall Street Journal column, in which he suggests President Barack Obama may be re-elected simply because of his race.  What Will fails to acknowledge in his insulting essay is that there are numerous objective assessments one may use in deciding whom to support for president.  Will’s list of select so-called Obama “failures” is skewed to support his own narrow thesis.  One can just as easily produce a listing of substantive Obama accomplishments that include: health care reform, student loan reform, financial regulatory reform, credit card reform, successful auto industry bailout, rescuing the economy from the precipice of collapse, ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, etc.  These may be considered irrelevant achievements from Will’s perspective, but they could be among the many factors influencing how others choose to view the president. 

It’s also important to note that presidents sometime face the electorate with mixed records, leaving voters to weigh the pros and cons of their accomplishments while in office.  On balance, the judgment rendered so far seems to tilt in favor of the president over his challenger this election cycle. Personal characteristics such as likeability and charisma no doubt factor into voter assessments as well.

Glaringly absent from Will’s narrative was any substantive critique of Mitt Romney's shortcomings as a candidate, someone Will himself once called a “recidivist reviser of principles.” The reality is that the GOP ran a weak general election candidate routinely regarded as an unprincipled flip-flopper who speaks in platitudes and whose ideas (tax plan and entitlement reforms) have so far been rejected by many voters.  Romney has also run an incompetent campaign filled with numerous gaffes and political miscalculations, not the least of which was making a poor choice for his vice presidential running mate.

So if Will wants a more plausible reason for why Obama might win despite the country’s economic woes, blame the sadly deficient candidate GOP voters chose to challenge him.

Should Struggling CNN Become a Liberal Version of Fox News to Survive?

Is there value anymore in nonpartisan broadcast news? That’s the question cable news giant CNN must ponder as the network tries to figure out a way to reverse its precipitous decline in viewership over the last several years. As Fox News has risen to the top spot in cable news followed and MSNBC, the once dominant CNN struggles in third place. Its ratings decline is startling: CNN averaged 519,000 total viewers in July, which is a 42% drop from July 2008. By comparison, Fox News averaged more than 2 million viewers in July with MSNBC attracting 855,000 total viewers.

Attempting to be neutral in an increasing partisan news environment today has become more difficult. The disconcerting reality is that viewers seem to want news with an ideological slant. This became apparent to me when I conducted a qualitative media study while in graduate school in 2005. The study, which involved conducting focus groups research on distinct political groups (Democrats, Republicans and independents) to assess how they used partisan news and opinion sources to make voting decisions, proved quite revealing.

Republican focus group participants, in particular, complained about there being too much opinion in major network news, yet they seemed perfectly content watching the unabashedly conservative learning Fox News network. One self-defined independent described major network news as “bland” because it was hard to discern their point of view. Just recently, during a discussion about cable news, a friend described CNN as “boring.” He much preferred the left-of-center tilt of MSNBC’s coverage. I concluded that viewers are fine with news bias so long as it tilts in their perceived ideological direction.

Such reflections make CNN’s quandary all the more difficult. How does one stake out a middle ground in news coverage when viewers seem to prefer partisan extremes. As an opinion journalist, I certainly appreciate the value good political commentary can offer news consumers. Thoughtful and intelligent commentary as a supplement to news, can help enlighten the public with insightful perspectives on importance issues. And while such commentary does exist on the Left and the Right, what viewers are more often subjected to on cable networks is a constant barrage of vitriolic partisan loudmouths seeking to inflame rather than responsibly inform, e.g., Sean Hannity, Bill O‘Reilly and Chris Matthews.

We can thank Fox News for poisoning the political commentary well with its bellicose and rancorous commentary over the years. The network has also shown little regard for the value in distinguishing reported news from opinion. As a result, the lines between the two are so blurred that viewers can probably no longer tell the difference.

MSNBC has of course gained viewership by becoming a more outspoken liberal counterpoint to conservative Fox News, a necessary but still regrettable development. If the 24-hour news cycle is going have one dominant conservative cable news network, it only seems fair that an equally dominant liberal alternative be available.

Of course this bring us back to where CNN fits into this partisan news landscape. I strongly believe that there is still great value in a neutral news source, and I commend the network for its commitment to maintaining such a journalistic standard. However, to be competitive, CNN will need to carve out more broadcast space for partisan commentary. Such shows can be separate and distinct from its reported news coverage. Instead of trying to have balanced liberal and conservative commentary within one program, which has failed to attract viewers, e.g., the Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker flop, the network should consider a slate of purely liberal and conservative political opinion shows. This approach still allows the network to maintain balance while attracting viewers who crave a partisan viewpoint.

It’s unfortunate that cable news has taken such a sharp partisan turn, and CNN deserves credit for its attempt to maintain a balanced approach to its news coverage. But as the cable news environment has changed, CNN -- no longer the only cable news source -- must adapt. The good news is that it can still feed the partisan commentary beast and take a middle-of-the-road approach to reported news. Let’s hope that formula works, if for no other reason than to dethrone Fox News.

Music Legends Leave Legacies Today’s Artists Can’t Match

With the recent passing of singer Donna Summer, I was compelled to reflect, with a sense of sadness and nostalgia, about the many great vocal talents we have lost in recent years. In addition to Summer, a few others of particular note include: Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Luther Vandross.

Each of these iconic singers possessed a truly unique vocal style that not only created phenomenal music, but had a profound impact on popular culture and music history. Their musical legacies will undoubtedly live on for decades and generations to come.

As the anointed “Queen of Disco,” Summer’s distinctive sound helped define an entire genre of music that was popular in the ‘70s. The long-haired songstress, who scored many memorable hit songs, clearly left her mark.

Jackson, as the well-earned “King of Pop,” was a music sensation like no other. Along with his groundbreaking dance moves, he delivered a string of hit songs, dynamic stage performances and spectacular music videos that still reverberate across the contemporary music scene.

Houston, arguably one of the most gifted female vocalists of our generation, leaves behind a treasure trove of great songs with her trademark powerful voice.  Her rendition of “I Will Always Love You” was a vocal triumph, easily ranking among the greatest hits of all time.

And Vandross was a modern crooner extraordinaire.  His soulful voice and impressive range set a new standard for male vocal excellence.  His songs were melodic and lyrically rich. Not many of today’s male singers can match his strength as an R&B vocalist.

Contrast the enduring greatness of these talented industry titans with the pre-packaged, studio enhanced and mediocre singers we hear today. Will anyone be talking about the musical significance of Beyoncé, Justin Bieber or Rihanna decades from now?  Are their tunes destined to become “old-school” favorites that future generations of music lovers will be listening to – not likely?

And then there are all the wannabe instant-fame seekers who made their way onto the music scene via “American Idol,” “American’s Got Talent” and other TV talent shows that promote the notion of overnight stardom at the expense of honing great talent through years of hard work and artistic dedication to one’s craft. As a result, much of today’s music is more about image than substance; and market packaging as opposed to genuine talent.

Rest assured, the vocal talents of Summer, Jackson, Houston and Vandross weren‘t manufactured in recording studios. As true singers, each were just as vocally strong on CD as they were in live performance. But what further sets them apart from their industry contemporaries is that the scope of their influence goes beyond being the fad of the moment. Their music evokes memories of significant times and places in pop culture history, transporting listeners back to cherished periods growing up.

  For those who came of age in the ‘70s, hearing a song by Summer probably takes them back to the sounds, colorful fashions and imagery unique to that cultural period. Likewise, for those of us who grew up as teens in the ‘80s, we witnessed the Jackson phenomenon first hand. The experience was akin to our generation’s “Beatles” moment.

And speaking of great moments, I’m heading to the Los Angeles Greek Theater in July to hear two luminaries of the music industry: Natalie Cole and Gladys Knight. As these classy singers grace the crowd with their amazing vocal talent, I’ll be thinking about their respective rich musical legacies and those of the great singers who are now gone but not forgotten.

Summer, Houston, Jackson and Vandross all left an indelible mark on music history. As new industry trends and artists come and go, their music will live on for future artists and music fans to appreciate.

GOP Should Stop Playing Extremist Politics

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who will face voters next month in a recall election recently assessed his fate by suggesting that political courage would suffer defeat if he were to lose. Nice spin governor, but the position Walker finds himself in was the result of his own political extremism, not courageous leadership.

In deciding to pass a law to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights as a means curb the rising cost of pensions and other benefits for public employees, Walker and fellow Republicans chose the most controversial course of action. As a result, they provoked the ire of voters who believe they went too far. Ohio voters recently rebelled against a similar anti-union law passed by a GOP governor by overwhelmingly repealing it at the ballot box.

Of course, in both cases, there were other less extreme solutions available, such as trimming benefits and requiring public employees to pay a higher percentage of their healthcare and pension costs, concessions many public unions had already agreed to make.

So why weren’t these more sensible and modest solutions seized upon by Republicans? Well, to answer the question you have to examine conservative political philosophy, which too often tends to see issues in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. Conservatives seem to perceive moderation as weakness, and strive to define themselves in a way that’s unquestionably distinct from their Democratic counterparts. Essentially, the GOP has become politically invested in always trying to position itself at polar opposites to Democratic or more liberal positions on similar issues. Whatever the Democrats favor, Republicans reactively have to oppose.

When political parties become too entrenched in a partisan “our way or the highway” approach to governing, it can invariably lead to extreme positions on issues that eschew more common sense solutions to problems. In such instances, holding the party line for partisan political reasons trump sensible compromise. Fortunately, when voters feel such political overreach is afoot, they rightly revolt against the extremist tactics, forcing politicians to re-examine their positions. That’s the reality that humbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich when he acknowledged the following after voters repealed that state‘s collective bargaining law:
“It's clear the people have spoken. I heard their voices. I understand their decision. And frankly, I respect what the people have to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”

Such is the predicament Walker now find himself in as possible eviction from office looms next month. Walker wants to portray himself as a principled political hero who stood up to organized labor to make tough fiscal choices for his state. That distortion of reality might have an ounce of credibility had he not acted in his political party’s self-interest by blatantly excluding police and firefighter unions from the collective bargaining law restrictions. Both union groups tend to support Republicans candidates.

If Walker really wanted to demonstrate political courage, he should have resisted his party’s partisan lurch to the extreme right and charted a more sensible moderate course with the unions. So despite Walker’s claims to the contrary, the cause of political courage will more than survive if he is recalled from office, so long as other leaders have the courage to not follow his bad example.

Obama's Not So Courageous Gay Marriage Stand

The gay community is justly ecstatic about President Obama’s recent decision, after years of straddling the fence, to fully endorse same-sex marriage. Some have even called the president’s decision courageous. Well, while the president deserves credit for finally “evolving” on the issue, I would hold off on awarding him any gold stars for political courage.

In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.

In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.

Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?

Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.

That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.

Partisan “Team” Mentality Undermines Responsible Governance

Rick Santorum’s comment during the recent GOP debate in Arizona in which he said, “sometimes you take one for the team,” in defense of his support for the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind legislation, which he now regrets, was both surprisingly honest and troubling.

Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.

Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.

His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.

Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.

Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?

On Gay Marriage, GOP Must Distinguish Personal Beliefs from Civil Freedoms

In the wake of the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Proposition 8 (the California same-sex marriage ban) as unconstitutional, conservatives are once again making claims of “judicial activism.“ Such hollow claims have become a familiar refrain from conservatives in response to major court rulings on which they disagree. They seem to believe that the role of the judiciary is to simply rubber stamp whatever the majority wants, whether it runs afoul of constitutional principles or not. Keep in mind that it took a major court ruling in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that struck down racial segregation, an immoral apartheid system in which the majority found perfectly acceptable.

The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.

In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.

But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.

Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.

Blame the Public for our Partisan Politics

A look at our political climate in Washington over the past three years and few would refute that we have a polarized governing body. Blame is usually directed at the two major political parties for their increasing ideological rigidity. Perhaps, but a more basic reason is at the heart of this entrenched partisan divide, as Gallup Poll statistics examining historical presidential approval ratings show.

Presidential approval rating averages from President Ronald Regan to President Barack Obama present a clear partisan divide in how Democrats and Republicans polled judge a president’s performance: Not surprisingly, each group showered favorable praise on the president when he’s a member of their party and voiced strong disapproval of the leader if he isn’t. Yes, there is a certain measure of political logic that voters’ reaction to a president would be skewed by their own party identity, but the fact that the divide is so stark and consistent across presidents regardless of party is indeed troubling. The data suggest that average American voters lack the ability or willingness to fairly assess presidential performance due to the influence of their own political party bias.

It’s understandable that voters might take exception to certain policy positions espoused by a president who’s a member of an opposing party, and would therefore be inclined to offer a less favorable critique. However, the polarization in approval ratings over time suggests neither political group is willing to give the opposition party's president fair credit -- even when, one assumes -- they may like what he’s doing. In other words, political ideology likely trumps fair judgment.

And this leads us back to our polarized political climate. It follows that the extreme partisan politics we see playing out in Congress is simply a reflection of the political divide shown in the views of voters throughout the country. If like-minded voters of their respective political parties can’t be fair and reasonable in their views of the president, why should the public expect elected leaders to behave any differently?

But there’s a huge contradiction in all this: Voters frequently express frustration and anguish at the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together to get things done for the good of the country, which is a sensible and reasonable expectation. But what those same voters need to first acknowledge is that their own partisan political attitudes make it highly unlikely for that to happen because politicians ultimately take their cues from the voters they represent. So, if voters truly desire less partisan politics, they might try being less partisan.

Donald Trump’s Anti-Obama Tirade Lacks Credibility

While I never disliked business mogul Donald Trump, I also never quite considered myself a fan either, even as I readily admit to having watched “The Apprentice” on occasion. However, his highly questionable crusade against President Barack Obama has completely soured my opinion of him.

Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.

Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.

So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?

Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.

The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.

Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.

Real News vs. Fake News

The most prominent ethical problem in journalism today is the infiltration of entertainment and popular culture into the news arena. With the emergence of entertainment news shows and the public’s increased interest in the personal lives of public figures, the lines between real news and industry buzz have been blurred. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news outlets. When talk shows hosted by highly-paid comedians become a news source, there is a serious problem. Distinguishing authentic journalism from pseudo journalism has become increasingly difficult due to the prevalence of mock news shows that are entertainment-focused, gossip-prone and sensationalistic. 

The goal of news is to provide the public with meaningful information that enlightens and empowers people to make informed choices. To accomplish this, news outlets must center its content around stories that are newsworthy. Unfortunately, the application of the term is applied much too loosely. Too many stories are featured as newsworthy, when in reality they are nothing but an illustration of bizarre behavior and sophisticated gossip. The news industry must work to distinguish itself from entertainment media and reestablish its reputation as an avenue for accurate information based on reliable sources, sound reporting techniques, whose content is factual and substantive. 

A study conducted by researchers at Ohio State University in 2008 found that people who watch fake news shows learn far less about political issues and candidates than people who watch television news shows on networks, such as CNN and NBC. “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more about a wide range of important topics than those exposed to entertainment media,” said Young Mie Kim, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State. 

Entertainment news shows like Extra and Inside Edition project a news-like format, however the content featured hardly qualifies as news. Regular topics include movie and sitcom reviews, the latest fashion trends and quite often the indiscretions of celebrities. During the Tiger Woods scandal in 2009, networks such as CNN and MSNBC provided prolonged coverage of the ordeal. While the story was newsworthy to some extent, traditional news programs provided more coverage than appropriate for news networks. High viewership of such stories may prove there is a considerable audience present, but news organizations must fight the urge to dilute its content to compete with entertainment media. 

Legal news shows like Nancy Grace feature newsworthy stories that obtain national attention, however, they are covered with a tabloid-like slant and overzealous tone. As a result, stories are taken out of context and blown out of proportion, making mock news shows like this a platform for sensationalism. Programs like The View use a talk show-like forum where issues of the day are discussed, however, most of the hosts are not professional journalists so their perspectives tend to be opinion-based, rather than founded on sound reporting and research. When substantial guests like President Obama appear, interviews are compromised due to poor training and technique. Programs in this genre also mix newsworthy events, such as the tax-cut debate with tinseltown gossip like Kim Kardashian’s divorce. Citizen journalism, while beneficial in some ways, has also compromised news quality due to “do it yourself” websites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia. Technology now allows people to blog and post videos of anything they find interesting without verifying facts, sources or properly reporting a story. The mix of real news with entertainment chatter is dangerous because it compromises the work of real journalists.

The news landscape has been muddied by a variety of genres that have weakened journalism and its perception by the public. “Audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public-affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, associate professor and Director of the Institute of Humanities at Old Dominion University. While solid journalism is the goal of most news outlets, ratings and revenue lie at the heart of any business model. Abiding by an ethical model in a revenue-driven media landscape where viewership of entertainment-based shows is in high demand may prove difficult, but its necessary. The role of ethics in journalism depends upon the philosophy and mission of a news organization, and the mindset of management and producers. Whether good or bad, the ethical code of any news organization will determine the quality and caliber of news featured, the direction a network will go in and ultimately its longevity. Implementing high standards will undoubtedly set traditional news networks a part from entertainment media, and position them as the more credible, reliable and respectable news source. -v7 

Herman Cain Ends an Embarrassing Campaign Spectacle

In the face of recent allegations of an extra-marital affair, Herman Cain has finally, albeit defiantly, ended his campaign to become the GOP nominee for president. Some suggest the combined fallout from sexual harassment and extra-marital affair charges made it impossible for him to stay in the race. But in reality, Cain had no business being in the race in the first place.

The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.

Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.

I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.

The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.

The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.

Mitt Romney is a Political Phony GOP Should Reject

According to conventional Republican Party political wisdom, Gov. Mitt Romney, who competed to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, should be outpacing his rivals this time around by leaps and bounds. Historically, Republicans tend to reward repeat nomination contenders with unbridled party support. But polls that show him garnering only about 23 to 25 percent support, even while being praised as the most plausible candidate in the field to challenge President Obama in 2012, suggest that GOP voters are not yet convinced. They seem intent to finding a more appealing alternative to Romney; and they are wise to keep looking.

Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.

George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”

In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”

When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.

GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.

What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.

Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.

Myth of Electing a “Non-Politician”

A recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll shows candidate Herman Cain pulling ahead of the other challengers in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain was the preferred choice among 27 percent of GOP primary voters. Behind Cain was Gov. Mitt Romney at 23 percent and Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent.

Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.

While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:

Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?

While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.

Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.

So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.

At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.

Pundits should stop making premature election predictions

In late August, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a piece practically anointing Gov. Rick Perry as “possibly our next president.“ In his argument, he makes reference to the “slew of polls showing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas surging to double-digit national leads.” He went on to analyze why Perry’s brand of politics was more appealing to today’s Republican Party, citing electoral trends and shifts in voter attitudes that make him a credible contender in 2012.

The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.

So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.

Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.

Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
　

Time to Wise up on Presidential Elections

Our quadrennial U.S. presidential election cycles are rather interesting events. They represent a moment in American civil engagement when voters swoon at the idealized fantasy that a better leader is looming out there just a ballot box vote away. Voters seem to get intoxicated by the pageantry, arousing stump speeches and saturation media coverage. But while these elections are vital to our Constitutional democracy, there are a few cautionary points voters should heed before getting sweep away in the spectacle and hype of the presidential campaign season:

Stop yearning for the next great political messiah -
The public needs to stop building presidents up to be more than what they are, which are public servants hired to do a job. Furthermore, political leaders aren’t omniscient beings endowed with powers that enable them to wave magic wands that instantly fix all the nation’s problems. We also don’t live in a dictatorship, so the president isn’t able to simply do what he wants at will. He’s only one person who must contend with an established political system, which includes a coequal branch of government (the U.S. Congress) that he must navigate and collaborate with in order to advance his agenda. Moreover, the president, no matter how well-intentioned or politically gifted, is limited in his ability to move his agenda due to the constraints of the legislative process, which can be extremely difficult.

Beware false political prophets -
These are the White House aspirants who boldly claim to possess the requisite skills and experience needed to solve all our problems. Voters of course cheer them on freely, enthusiastically drinking the Kool-Aid these charlatans peddle. But what voters fail to grasp while entranced in the intoxicating haze of scripted speeches and poll-tested campaign rhetoric is that there is a fundamental difference between “campaigning” and “governing.” As candidates vying to win their way into elected office, it’s easy to promise voters the moon on the campaign trail and make unrealistic assertions about what they can do once in office. Also, candidates are completely unburdened by having to make the tough decisions officeholders confronting real problems have to make everyday.

One reason high-office contenders get away with telling such fables stems from not usually being held accountable for their fantasy promises or intentions on the campaign trail. If the fables sound credible enough such as promising to fix Medicare and Social Security or easily creating millions of new jobs, candidates get the benefit of the doubt from voters who are often less concerned about the specific details no matter how impractical the claims may be.

In truth, if our country’s problems were as easy to fix as some candidates would naively have voters believe, wouldn’t they have been resolved already? That’s just something to keep in mind the next time you hear candidates promising something that seems too good to be true.

Change for change sake is seldom a good idea -
Contrary to popular belief, change isn’t always good. When election-year emotions and passions are running high, voters can get fired up, sometimes charging to the polls with a throw-the-bums-out mindset. And while there are many political bums that need to be thrown out of office from time to time, voters need to be careful that they are not hastily throwing in a new set of bums to replace those just booted. Well that‘s exactly what happened in the 2010 elections when voters stormed to the polls on a wave of so-called anger to throw out the Democrats who they replaced with band of anti-government conservative extremists called the Tea Party.

The prolonged debt-ceiling crisis was dragged out in large measure because Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives stubbornly refused to compromise, choosing instead to risk bringing our nation’s economy, which is already on shaky legs, to the brink of collapse. But such behavior was reasonably predictable given some of the extremist rhetoric many of these candidates espoused during the 2010 campaign. True, the public wisely rejected many of these candidates as not sufficiently qualified to hold elected office, but they also unwisely voted a number of them into office, and now we see the result.
Voter anger directed at our dysfunctional political process is fine, but it makes no sense to exacerbate the problem by electing hyper-partisan leaders who make matters worse. 

This is equally important when voters cast their votes for president. Voters should avoid making a partisan-fueled, knee-jerk decision that could have lasting consequences. Vote wisely, but more importantly, have realistic expectations for the candidate you choose.

The Problem of Celebrity

As Kim Kardashian prepares for her nuptials to NBA cutie Kris Humphries, and buzz about Jennifer Lopez’s recent divorce continues to adorn grocery store aisles everywhere, 
one question comes to mind:

Why are people so enthralled with the personal lives of celebrities?

I attribute this obsession on the part of the public to what I call “The Problem of Celebrity.” Our society is obsessed with people who have achieved money, success and extraordinary fame. We live vicariously through them. Look no further than the recent fanfare following the sudden death of Amy Winehouse, the reemergence and popularity of R&B singer Chris Brown following his domestic abuse incident, and the distant but not forgotten sex scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods.

Our daily news is an usual blend of savvy headlines like: “President Obama makes sharp remarks about the debt ceiling standoff....” “The victims of Norway are gone but not forgotten....” and “Kim Kardashian finally picks her wedding dress.” You can't be serious.

Who’s to blame for this moronic blend of substantive news and sorority girl antics? 

The public? The media? Or celebrities? Hold that thought.

        

In addition to the denigration of news in the U.S., it’s also a crude reality that people set higher standards for celebrities than they do for themselves. What happens when and if our beloved Kim Kardashian cheats on her reality TV husband? Will we continue to worship her? Or will we knock her off her tinsel town pedestal and treat her with the same disdain as Arnold Schwarzenegger? Again, hold that thought.

The public is notorious for boycotting celebrities when scandals break. We are quick to pass judgment and stop patronizing someone if we get wind they did something we don’t approve of. Because celebrities exhibit a talent, skill or image the everyday Joe or Joanna doesn’t possess, we make modern-day idols out of them and come short of deeming them superhuman. 

Truth is, people feel comfortable playing judge in the lives of celebrities because we have the luxury of seeing their lives and indiscretions played out for the world to see, while our own lives remain private and unbroadcasted. When you have that kind of access and anonymity coupled into one, people feel empowered, and exploit that power to the Nth degree.

Because celebrities have achieved in life what many only dream of, people expect them to be dreamlike in every way. Hence, the constant fanfare and never ending obsession. People feel the need to love everything about a celebrity in order to support them because we expect them to do something we're incapable of: attain perfection. 

We expect celebrities to live up to the hype we’ve created for them.  

And we throw tantrums when they don’t. 

The moment our expectations don’t materialize, we are forced to face the reality that the people we’ve been idolizing are just that: people. Not immortal super heroes, but rather everyday people just like us who garner public attention through the machinery of marketing, distribution and media. 

When faced with this reality, people become disgruntled. Rather than blame ourselves for having unfair and unrealistic expectations, we fault celebrities for not fulfilling our dreams. So who’s the real culprit: the public, the media or celebrities? I'll let you answer that.

Until people accept the fact that celebrities are not perfect, but just as flawed as we are, 
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us. 

And until the public takes more of an interest in news that actually matters, rather than how Kim Kardashian will look in her wedding dress, we’ll continue to be bombarded with more dense reality television.

Until then, it’s only downhill from here. -v7