Bogert: America and the Human Rights Issue

    Carroll Bogert’s talk centered around the America as a human rights leader.  She spoke as a member of Human Rights Watch and shared the main sentiment of both her and her organization,” People in power tend to abuse power...and they need to be watched.”  Her general point when it came to America’s role in human rights was that, yes, America is a leader in human rights and should be encouraged to do more but that it also needs to address the human rights issues within itself to better respond to violations around the world.  America can find itself on both sides of the human rights issue, in many cases they are an ally but many they prevent progress on human rights.  An easy side by side example of this is that the US was a key supporter of the ban on landmines but they also violate the treaty in their military support of South Korea.  Human Rights Watch and Bogert herself believe their role is to bring to light issues of human rights inside and outside of the US so that the powers that be can take action.

    Bogert took us through the specific case of Central African Republic.  This small African Nation was so small that no one from outside could see the turmoil going on inside.  Sectarian warring threatened to take the issue to genocidal levels.  Luckily it did catch the eye of the Human Right Watch and they implemented their system; investigate, expose, change.  They used their spills to bring this issue to the attention of the media but more importantly the attention of the US government.  With their Power the US was able to mobilize both their assets and gain the support of the UN.  This prime example of the success that human rights organizations and the United States can have when they work together.  They brought the problem to light and the US was able to solve it and make the world a better place.

    We cannot yet call the US a human rights champion because if we turn the lens back inside the US there are many issues left unaddressed.  The Geneva Convention, which the US helped right, puts a strict ban on torture yet the US is still only phasing out such systems.  There were a few months there when Guantanamo was a hot button issue but we no longer hear about it, and it is still there.  This is exactly the type of issue that the Human Rights Watch wants the US to take a hard look at and it is one that all Americans should respond to.  Bogert actually witnessed a hearing in Guantanamo herself.  This is a trial but not the kind we would expect for such individuals, they are judged in front of military commissions, which is strange considering there are not members of the US military.  They may not be torturing them any longer but evidence gained from other prisoners through torture can be used in the trial.  The significance of the HRW is that they are trying to bring to light a rights violation that almost no one else cares about even though it goes against all accepted forms of justice.

    The US’s rights violations are not restricted to an island off that coast, they are all around.  The HRW seeks to investigate, expose and change crimes against immigrants, expedited removal of possible refugees, juvenile life without parole and many more.  It all goes to their mantra that those in power need to be watched, in order to keep the US accountable both at home and abroad.  They are important for their interest in bring the public consciousness the hardship of those without a voice, that means a small country in Africa but it also means the struggle of immigrant children who are put into overcrowded jail houses.  They do the investigative work that citizens and even the government do not have the time or resources for to provide all of us the ability to help them make the change.

 

The Ambiguity within Radical Groups: David Pellow

 David Pellow, social scientist and environment activist at the University of Minnesota, presented a close examination of “eco-terrorism” in his panel: “Radical Politics, State Repression, and the Problems of ‘Eco-Terrorism’”. Throughout his program he told a interesting narrative involving one his former students being arrested and how Pellow himself began to be examined by the FBI. It was from an actual experience of being scrutinized by the law, that Pellow began to examine the “eco-terrorist” groups defined by the justice department.

Pellow found that the message of these radical groups is often muddled. These radical groups participate in arson and the destruction of property in the name of protest. These physical attacks are what get these groups branded as “terrorists”, but the radical environmentalist may have other issues besides their violent protest. Their ethics are also in question as a result of the racism, homophobia and transphobia among other things, that exists within the numbers of these groups. This problem has become so relevant that certain organizations are re-branding their groups by connecting the ideas of social justice and environmental politics.

This idea of human and environmental equality is serving to help the environmental groups like Earth Front, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. However the ideals of theses groups are still viewed as too radical by the public. The language in which these "eco-terrorists" use to convey their beliefs is incredibly intense and does not provide room for any stretch towards a more refined, peaceful group. The murkiness found in the radical environmentalist groups emulates the ethical ambiguity of our own government. While our government may fight for noble cause(s), (and in a black-and-white world, the government may be applauded) the actions taken by the government and the problems within the system itself creates problems that can be difficult to confront and reform. 

Party-to-Party Conversation

The American political system is the field and there is only one way to play the game.

In the American political system, the two main political parties, Republicans and Democrats, function fairly similarly.

In the campaign “game,” the three main goals (no pun intended) are to demonstrate competence, consistency, and adept communication skills (Wayne). They need to appear to have a competent understanding of the prominent issues, and more importantly how they intend on fixing or responding to those issues. Additionally, their stances on these issues must be constant—in maintaining a loyal constituency, consistency is key. Consistency breeds trust in an electorate. And, most importantly, candidates need to be able to communicate these ideas properly and effectively. Wayne explains this necessity in Is This Any Way To Run A Democratic Election?: “They [candidates] need to learn about public concerns and  convince voters that they will address those concerns satisfactorily” (195). In the end, promises, positions, and priorities= performance; the promises they make, the positions they take, and the priorities they put at stake end up defining what voters perceive as potential performance.

These facts of the game do not change between political parties. Different political parties go about this in the same way but are simply promoting different ideologies: “Democrats stress equal opportunities and political liberty, whereas Republicans point to personal economic initiatives and to law and order within the domestic sphere” (Wayne 201). The two teams, so to speak, fit within the same framework. They present different ideas using the same tactics.

I ask, then, what are the ramifications of these “tactics”? What does the use of “tactics” mean with regards to the purity of the political system? If politicians use the same tactics, are they both simply participating in using the media to manipulate voters into yielding a certain public or electoral response?

It could certainly be assessed that the similar tactics used by politicians are an indication of a promotion of manipulation. Politicians know how to get to voters in an attempt to produce a particular response. However, I do not see this so much as manipulation but rather as a knowledge and understanding of the political field and of how to energize and mobilize voters.    

For example, politicians take their opponent’s negative and make it their positive. In Is This Any Way To Run a Democratic Election?, Wayne provides an example of this: In the 1988 election, presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was presented as a “knee jerk liberal who released hardened criminals from jail” (201). In response, the George H.W. Bush campaign then focused on Bush’s tough approach to criminals, in juxtaposition with Dukakis’s leniency. This tactic could be assessed as manipulating voters by demonizing one candidate and idolizing the other.

However, I think tactics like these are not devious, but rather a vehicle of fostering party-to-party conversation. This conversation is a device of informing voters on the issue, and providing views from all differing angles. When a candidate makes their opponent’s negative a positive, it is possible, if not probable, that they will respond to this by providing a reason as to why that “positive” perhaps isn’t as positive as it seems. These divisions reflect differences in ideologies, not an attempt to control voters. These differences need to be revealed for the political process to function properly. Conversation is necessary to having a holistic image presented to the voters. Conversation does not promote polarization. It allows voters to see all sides. They way candidates converse can reveal a lot about their competence, consistency and most prominently, their communication skills. Which, in turn, do end up yielding voter perception of candidates. 

Wayne, Stephen J. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.

Political Parties of the Past and Present

            The idea of Democrats as the left leaning party and the Republicans as the right leaning party might be the case today however in our countries past it was not. When the country began Republicans and Democrats weren’t even the main political parties. At the time directly after our countries transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and Bill of Rights the too main parties were the Federalists and Anti-federalists. Politicians like Alexander Hamilton aligned themselves with the Federalists while a politician like Thomas Jefferson aligned himself with the Anti-federalist. Federalist had a more loose interpretation of the constitution than the Anti-federalists. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist believed that the federal government should be more powerful than the individual states government, also in the creation of a national bank and other bureaucratic offices other than the ones created in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-federalists championed states right above the federal government and only wanted the federal government to do the things the constitution granted it to do.

            Eventually these two parties dissolved and the two to come up in their place were the Democrats and Whigs. The Democrats were pro-states rights, in favor of a small federal government, pro agriculture and the so called democrats were the party of the farmer, while the Whigs were pro-federal government and pro-industry. The Whigs represented the party of Business. In the 1850’s the Whig party began to decrease when a party calling themselves Republicans emerged. They believed they were the party of the middle class and business, and had a platform of a large federal government and keeping the western territories free of slaves.

            In Post Civil War America, The Democratic Party took a hit because the states that seceded were all democratic. In the late 1800’s Republican Party continued its stance as a pro-business party.

            When the country reached the 1920’s and 1930’s the idea of the parties we know today began to form. The Democrats now favored a large government, which would be able to regulate business and offer the people aide. While the Republican Party, believed in less regulation of the economy, therefore a smaller national government, and less government aide.

            Since then these are the platforms that both parties have run on, and each had a time where one political party was more popular than the other? For the Democrats it was the 60’s, with presidents like LBJ, the great society and the civil rights act of 1865 and for the Republicans it was the 80’s, with presidents like Ronald Reagan, cutting of government spending and Reaganomics.

            However it is important to realize that our country has never had two permanent political parties, with a set view on all issues. Our winner takes all elections guarantee that there will be a two party system but nothing else. 50 years from now the Democratic Party could have a totally different platform or may not even exist, as the issues of our country change so do the political parties. When someone asks you what political party you belong to, your response classifies you as a certain person. So what does it really mean to be a democrat or republican? The names of both parties themselves carry such connotation, but each name has been related to every issue at different sides of the spectrum at one point or another, meaning just saying you’re a republican or democrat is not necessarily enough of a description about your beliefs. What should carry the most weight is what each person believes in. 

The Political Party Machine

            It is very evident that campaign ads have had increasingly more impact on elections throughout the United States. Most politicians attempt to use campaign ads to swing the population’s vote in favor of their campaigns rather than their competitors. Political parties also use their money to fund campaign ads, which are designed to favor certain nominees for their parties in the hopes of swinging votes.

            Recently, there have been many issues with campaign advertisements, which have gone so far as to the Supreme Court. Political parties had paid for almost 63% of the ads that were brought to court(Chokshi). Most of the ads that were being funded had been attack ads, specifically attacking other competitors as well as an increase in attack ads against members of the Judiciary in relation to crime and such. There was an increase in attack advertisements specifically attacking members of the Supreme Court after rulings were made involving criminals.

            Overall this shows the increasing affect that political parties have on politics and the way that we look at different parts of our government and public life. Political parties and outside groups have already spent more than $9.1 million on TV advertisements alone, and with election looming in the distance, its safe to say that there will be an increase in attack advertisements from political parties.

Chokshi, Niraj. "Outside groups and political parties are driving judicial campaigning - The Washington Post." Washington Post. N.p., 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

Rise of the Nation of the Independents

        Even though the U.S. needs a two-party system in order to maintain it’s government, polls are showing a significant increase in voters that identify as Independent. With a steady decline in both parties, (Democrats however still maintain a higher party identification than Republicans) it seems that the informed voters of the nation are attempting to make a change in modern U.S. democracy. The unexpected trend is perhaps the most understated issue in the U.S. government.

Coming from the lens of a registered Independent, I can tell you that it’s not about declaring action against the party system, and it’s certainly not about some sort of clear cut divide between conservative and liberal ideals. What’s driving the increase in Independent voters is the general dissatisfaction with the government. In recent years the American public has loss significant faith in all branches of the U.S. government. The rise towards Independent voters is partially meant as a protest against the government, showing that voters won’t immediately throw their support to politicians until there is significant change in our government. Whether it be be through representation or new legislation that would prevent the government from being in such a stand-still on certain issues. Another part of the rise of Independents is a portion of voters genuinely wanting to entertain the ideas and policies of electoral candidates that aren’t associate with the two-parties. 

Some research suggests that Independent voters are very well informed and keep an active eye on the government. And that’s probably what’s scaring politicians the most, a rise in informed voters that are seeking change in government. What’s rather fantastic about the increase in Independents, is that the American public is fundamentally relying on the basis of all democracy. The voice of the public is growing in order to change the government, thus respecting the pillars that democracy is built on. What can be viewed as a protest or a decline of partisan participation, can also be seen as a movement towards a stronger, adaptive, government.

Gallup. “Record High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents” January 8, 2014. Accessed October 23, 2014.

Gallup. “Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of the U.S. Gov’t” June 30, 2014. Accessed October 23, 2014.

Truthout. “What Do We Know About Independent Voters?” September 25, 2012. Accessed October 23, 2014.