Race in America

By Patrick Coughlin

Pcoughlin@Fordham.edu

In the aftermath of the now infamous remark “you lie!” by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) during President Obama’s most recent Address to Congress, former President Jimmy Carter had some decidedly interesting thoughts on the issue: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American.”

Personal opinions aside, Mr. Carter’s remark does shed some light on the discussion of race in this country. After Barack Obama was elected to the presidency, many political pundits opined that racism in the United States was dissipating, as evidenced by the large white turnout that Mr. Obama received. More white Americans voted for Barack Obama than the two previous Democratic presidential candidates, John Kerry and Al Gore. Additionally, three states that belonged to the Confederate States of America—Virginia, North Carolina and Florida—went to Mr. Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. These facts, though encouraging, are not the center of this discussion. Rather, its focus is the role race has and will play in any criticism of President Obama.

While Rep. Joe Wilson’s comment was certainly inappropriate for the venue and disrespectful to the Office of the Presidency, it is of the utmost importance not to immediately pull out the “race card.” This concept is comparable to the predicament that a white police officer faces when confronted by an aggressor that is not of the same race, such as in the cases of Sean Bell and Omar J. Edwards. In both situations, the prominent civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton accused the police officers of essentially acting on racial prejudices that would not have come into play had Messrs. Bell and Edwards been white. The danger of such an accusation lies in the affect it has on a law enforcement officials’ ability to do his or her job. Second-guessing out of fear of being branded a racist will make an already hazardous job worse.

Just as police officers need to be able to do their job (albeit with restraint) without race in the back of their minds, politicians and the American people need to be able to ask tough questions and critically analyze policy initiatives without fear of the asinine “racist” label. Inappropriate charges of racism only block rational debate.

I believe that policy, not race, is the number one cause of apprehension among President Obama’s critics. Popular concern is over the record deficit spending and government overreach amongst the administrations initiatives. The same concerns would still exist with a white male in office.

With the frenzied state that Washington is in over the major pieces of legislation confronting Congress, sound judgment and rational discussion is needed now more than ever but is seemingly absent. Race is an issue that ignites emotions which close the mind to sensible deliberation.

Justice is blind. Why is politics not?

The Truth Behind Glenn Beck

By Phil Fraietta

Fraietta@Fordham.edu

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck has recently taken a lot of heat regarding comments he made to Katie Couric in which he was heavily critical of failed Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain. Beck even went so far as to say he would’ve voted for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over McCain and that he believes President Barack Obama will be better for the country that McCain would have.

While I do not agree with Beck that McCain would have been a worse choice than Clinton or Obama, I was particularly fond of his explanation. Beck argued that McCain has a strange sense of progressivism in him. For instance, McCain supports Cap and Trade and was a pioneer for Campaign Finance Reform. But, perhaps what was most telling was Beck indicating that McCain’s personal political hero is President Theodore Roosevelt.

As President, Roosevelt authored some of the most progressive legislation this nation has ever seen, including strong environmentalist legislation, and often spoke of high taxation in order to improve income equality. Despite this progressivism, contemporary conservatives often times look to Theodore Roosevelt as a great President and a hero. Why? Because of Roosevelt’s military heroics.

This brings me to the real point of this post: it’s about time conservatives stop tolerating progressive policies in the name of military heroics. Over the past 100 years we have seen this happen with progressive Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and most recently with progressive Senator John McCain.

Now, it is certainly true that military heroics should be honored but they most certainly do not excuse progressive behavior while in office. In other words, respect these individuals for their military heroics, but criticize them for their politics.

Fellow conservatives should be praising Glenn Beck’s comments, not criticizing them. I believe it is time we, as conservatives, toughen up and refuse to tolerate progressivism, regardless of military credentials. Let’s put true conservatives into office, people who will keep government small, who will lower our taxes, and most importantly, who will preserve liberty. Not people whose only conservative appeal is past military heroics.

Obama's surprising idol

By Douglas Kohn

Kohn@Fordham.edu

Trying to sort through all the screaming about Obama’s healthcare plans and charges of racism from the left, it seems his overall mannerisms and style are very close to a certain President that few people know Obama has a soft spot and great respect for.

Obama’s presentation and style are more like Ronald Reagan than any Conservative would like to admit. In watching old Presidential speeches from FDR to Bush, there is no other closer parallel that I can find. I am not alone in this analysis.

Obama has a deep respect for Ronald Reagan, thus far his political opposite (if you need proof and find this preposterous, take a look at this). There have been several occasions where Obama has recognized Reagan as a transformative president. Obama has now arranged a celebration of Reagan’s 100th birthday, something he was under no formal obligation to do (incidentally, Abraham Lincoln’s 200th birthday passed with the President giving no more than a speech in Illinois).

The aforementioned brings the issue of Presidential styles. The Gipper’s two favorite Presidents past were none other than FDR and Lincoln. This may come as a surprise to us right-wingers, but even after he switched from being a Democrat to Republican, Reagan maintained a great respect for FDR, despite presenting himself as undoing, or at least adjusting, much of Roosevelt’s legacy.

People have compared Obama many times to JFK but I find this a difficult comparison to sustain. Kennedy’s style was of a class by itself. No American president in the 20th Century has matched his eloquence and charisma. Reagan may have been the Great Communicator, but did not possess Kennedy’s ability with the English language.

Obama wants to see himself as a transformative president akin to the three he routinely cites in his speeches. Roosevelt, Kennedy and most of all Reagan. This is not to say he is going to follow Reagan or Kennedy’s policies. By today’s standards, Kennedy would probably be considered a far Right Republican.

So who does Obama compare to, when bringing together his style and his policies? Obama has spent untold sums of money on ‘stimulating’ the economy, escalated a war with grossly unrealistic aims in Afghanistan, and been an excellent communicator of albeit lacking policies.

Thus far, in my opinion, Obama is Roosevelt on economy, Reagan in style, and Kennedy/Johnson on foreign policy.

College Republicans meeting today!

Make sure to check out the College Republicans meeting today at 1:00 PM in Dealy 115.

* Learn how to get on Fordham TV

* Here about campaigns in NYC

* Talk about Obama's latest lunacies

Plus...FREE PIZZA!

Where: Dealy 115

When: Thursday, September 24

Time: 1:00 PM

Young Americans for Liberty meeting today!

Make sure not to miss the Young Americans for Liberty meeting today!

Dealy 115

2:30 PM

YAL is Fordham's newest and only libertarian club on campus. For more information, contact Phil Fraietta at Fraietta@Fordham.edu.

Some thoughts on tariffs

By Douglas Kohn

Kohn@Fordham.edu

Anyone who has spoken with me at length on the subject knows that I am highly skeptical of unfettered free trade. There is no question that if you take the world as one economy, free trade increases productivity, creates jobs and new wealth.

But for all the talk of the world economy, it does not exist in the manner many academic economists believe it does. Nations have competing interests and sometimes the growth of one nation comes at the expense of another. In a manner of speaking I am a cautious economic nationalist, as I am for America, first, last and always.

President Obama’s latest imposition of tariffs on Chinese tires worries me greatly, however. I believe that a proper tariff regime can only be imposed on world trade during times of economic growth. Smoot Hawley has taught us that to protect industries during recession is disastrous, but history has also taught us that some of America’s greatest periods of economic growth took place under a tariff system.

America’s capitalist economic formula was engineered by our founding father Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. He knew that manufacturing was necessary for economic advancement, and that only with a large domestic market protected from foreign goods would America be able to thrive. Tariffs would enable us to keep taxes low on the people that produce our food, goods and services.

That being said, tariffs and national banks (another Hamiltonian policy) were not enshrined in the Constitution and therefore are guidelines for the future, not unbreakable law.

In my own observations I have come to conclude that free trade with nations that do not have labor or environmental standards is folly (though I would make some exceptions), but that free trade with some nations would be mutually beneficial and create unprecedented wealth and opportunity. For example, if the United States was to sign a Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, we would see the creation of vast amounts of new wealth and opportunity, coupled with greater competition to keep down prices between nations that cannot undercut each other’s economic advantage through abuse of the labor force.

However, the trading regime with China cannot be allowed to continue. The problem is, when it comes to policy regarding China, timing is everything. Right now the world looks to China to help resuscitate trade and economic growth. The United States especially needs China to keep buying our debt until such time as we are able to cut expenses and pay it down.

After such time, America should take a more nationalist approach toward China as we did in 2005 when CNOOC, the Chinese government’s main oil producer, tried to acquire American oil producer Unocal. This was particularly troubling because it was not independent investors that were trying to acquire American oil resources, but an arm of the Chinese government. Between that and nationalist currency manipulations, China has behaved in a manner that suggests it is trying to steal American industry.

A tougher line must be towed but when the timing is right.

Respect for Life meeting

Fordham's award-winning Respect for Life club will be having a meeting on Tuesday, September 8 at 7:30 PM in Keating 116.

For more information, please contact R4L President Brendan O'Morchoe at Omorchoe@Fordham.edu.