2012 US Elections

It’s gone, gone, gone
It’s time for things to get better
It’s time for things to move on.
~Ou Est Le Swimming Pool~

With the kick-off and onset for the 2012 US elections, one can only help but reminisce on the 2008 elections, where McCain and Obama came head-to-head in a domestic political war: Republicans versus Democrats. Though the last 2 years of term of office, it is evident that he has made an impact on the political field of United States and Globalisation, but how much of a change has he really made?

Considering the aftermath of eight years’ worth of “Bushism,” the pressure for Obama to make immediate change skyrocketed, and expectations were elevated. The Promise for Change which Obama had repetitively emphasized throughout his campaign in 2008 had the country hoping for more – and in offering hope for the nation, people are likely to feel included rather than overlooked.

Part of the reason the Democrats were in the lead two years prior is that Bush’s administration failed to comply to society’s demands for justice and progression. Though Republicanism itself is built on traditional and concrete (unwavering) values, George Bush and his administration turned out to be a disappointing testimony as the face of Republicans. The fact that the stronger players in the game – the main power players – had reached this higher level of success, many of the team felt that the existing system was already the best available option. However, in eight years of Bush’s office, society noticed that little was being done to accommodate their needs: Change was needed.

Obama’s role as a “change maker” appealed to a society desperate for a president who cared, a president who believed in change, a president who himself disputed the existing system. Had Obama stepped up any earlier than he had, society might not have been as anguished and forlorn, but taking into account the failures and disarrays the Bush Administration had left, Obama offered hope to a broken society.

Now that his term is at its mean, enough has materialised for one to speculate. Change, as Obama promised, has most definitely been made, but on what scale? Many would argue that he has not done all he has promised, however, bear in mind that Obama bears a stepping-stone mindset: to change the big, one must first change the small. By this, one might argue that not enough has been done reagarding taxes, the war in the Middle East, foreign policy etc. Though these issues have not been as heavily regarded today as it was with Bush’s Administration, Obama’s focus was on individual care: the Reformed Health Care Plan, refining the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill and the religious disputes between Islamics and Islamism.

All things considered, the social demands for Obama to “change the country” are derived from their expectation for him to “clean up Bush’s mess” at the click of a finger. With expectations set absurdly high, it is inevitable for society to be disillusioned and disappointed. And this disappointment comes demand for change, yet again.

Democracy focuses on change based on society’s demands, yet the irony is that society can only handle change when it is convenient – take the best, leave the rest. Republicans, on the other hand, do not account for variable change because (as stated above) pressure for change, in a republican government, come from below or even outside the circle of rule. Republicanism is built on fundamentally traditional values, thus it is pragmatic and realistic, but hypocritical and inconsiderate.

Democracy may appeal to society, because on paper the ideas and incentives revolve around its People. The People make the change, the People determine the system. At the end of the day, it’s an idealistic and utopian system of government, popular by demand and appeal, but impossible to satisfy (especially in highly populated regions like the US). Perhaps democracy isn’t all that it was set out to be, but on a smaller scale (small countries) it might turn out more efficient and effective, simply because fewer people means fewer demands; fewer demands means fewer changes; fewer changes means fewer adjustments; fewer adjustments means fewer complaints.

Thus, the upcoming US elections are likely to be taken over by Republicans, simply because of it’s “unwavering values.” These values are “convenient” and ancient, but have existed long enough for society to incorporate the institutions into everyday life: the institutions of the Republicans are legitimised by social compliance, and though society will realise sooner or later that the amount of control and influence each individual once had is slowly slipping away, stability will improve simply because the foundations are firmer and stronger.

Until then, this hypothesis will remain a conjecture until proven (or disproven) in the next few years.

You want me to come over but I got an excuse
Might be holding your hand but I’m holding it loose
~Example~

The Great Firewall of China

Stop calling, stop calling
I don’t wanna think anymore.
~Lady Gaga~

In the rise of national interest, advocacy for human rights seem to be declining. Despite Amnesty International, UNICEF and other major World Peace / Freedom fighters, more and more are focused on the growing demand for the national interested of already developed (OECD) states.

Not only are the democrats demanding Obama’s desires and goals to be fulfilled, but in rejecting the Republicans’ (GOP – Grand Old Party) efforts in bettering the state, one can only wonder what is the the real reason for the underlying tension between parties. Since both parties have similar views — the only obstacle hindering the US from progressing is the label “Republicans” vs. “Democrats.” Suppose one were to remove the titles, and simply come forth with different proposals, it would become evident that the country is merely holding grudges within its own national parties rather than focusing on the betterment of the country and global enterprise.

This said, here are a few updates in sum.

  • China’s increased efforts in silencing its citizens voices has proved harder than envisioned: despite Google’s recent threat to pull out, China has continued building up its firewall to the point where most of its citizens have no idea what they’re missing out on. (Newsweek: Europe. March 2010 edition).
  • Obama’s Health-Care Plan has reached a total of 1,990 pages and has increased to US$950 Billion. This is not only causing disputes amongst most of Congress (who are still weary of this proposal) but medical students fresh into their career are making an average of US$100,000 annually, as opposed to their US$200,000 med school debts which they are left with. This explains why most med students choose to go into private practices and dermatology rather than work for the public systems. Which leaves the state at a medical stand still: hence a desperate need for the Health-Care Plan to be revised. (Mary Carmichael, Newsweek)
  • The IPCC has admitted to giving out inaccurate information, especially regarding the melting of the Himalayan Mountains. Their predictions for 2035 have been off by 20 years (at least). The question lies at why errors were found in the configuration system of the Panel. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, claims that the panel has been “too transparent with their work, using the [circling the jungle] system” rather than keeping their research on a low key. This has resulted in a 15% decrease of Global Warming Theory supporters, and has also reduced the credibility of the IPCC and UN organizations trying to combat gas emissions. (Newsweek, March 2010 edition)
  • Human Rights are becoming less significant on a global scale, not only because the American Democrats are acting in their own national interest, but also due to the fact that underdeveloped countries are lacking in advocacy. The minimal amount of advocacy they do currently posses, however, would have to represent their state in the presence of 15 separate judges from various geographical locations globally. However, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) takes a more conservative stand, acting in global benefit rather than national interest, thus if the fact that TWC (Third World Countries) are lacking in human rights doesn’t have a major affect on OECD countries, thus it is virtually impossible to take into account of each uprising fight for human rights. (International Relations: Key Concepts)
  • After China’s ban on freedom of voice and religion, China ranks second in having the least human rights recognition. The first is Kazakhstan. (Newsweek, March 2010 edition).
  • Australia is co-operating with the Sri Lanken government and limiting the amount of refugees entering the country. Reasons remain unclear, although speculations have been made that this is due to the possibility of Australia becoming uninhabitable in 20-50 years. If this were the case, a total evacuation of the country will have to be made, thus limiting the total influx of “less privileged people” will allegedly ease the evacuation in the years to come. (Theory still being revised).

Anyway, for those of you who faithfully follow my blog (I know there aren’t many yet), I hope this helped with a recent update. I should try to keep this going with more consistency, but due to the sudden inundation of information which I have been taking in recently, one can see why consistency might be a bit difficult at this time.

All the same, don’t stop reading!

Mikaela G.

Come on make a move on me.
~Joey Negro~