A recent article, “Elected officials seldom act in public interest”, published in the Badger Herald portrayed our president as a weak moderate and the College Democrats of Madison as a useless organization. As a whole, the College Democrats would like to refute the article’s absurd attacks on both President Obama and our organization.
There is plenty of room in this country for varying viewpoints — the Founding Fathers made sure of that. The author of the article in question proudly considers himself a radical, and in this country that is not only welcomed, but encouraged in the name of true political debate. The Founding Fathers also crafted a multi-branch system of checks and balances, purposely making radical change exceedingly difficult to enact. Calling President Obama a “fraud of a candidate” simply because he has not enacted “radical change” in his first year in office reflects a callow ignorance of our system of government. No matter how frustrating the slow pace of change is, the fact that a president with a sympathetic congress cannot simply pass whatever agenda he pleases is a testament to the stability of this system. President Obama, who in his first year in office has taken on universal health care and made enormous decisions to help rehabilitate our flailing economy, realized change would be a long process. Barack Obama, a pragmatist and refreshingly honest president, has warned people of the slow pace of government. While political extremists increasingly deplore ideological diversity and open dialogue, we as the College Democrats support our president and hope for a nation that works together to create better futures for our children.
Yet while we continue to support the president, the College Democrats need no reminder that elected officials come and go. We remain loyal to fighting for the fundamental platforms of the Democratic Party: supporting our students and education system, creating jobs that fuel our economy, establishing basic liberty and equality, and working toward a safer world, both domestically and internationally. Last semester we held campaigns for equal access to health care and for women’s sexual health. This semester we plan on doing even more. Our LGBT Caucus has been busy planning a leadership workshop to present at the Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference, as well as a day of lobbying at the Capitol against the Wisconsin gay marriage ban. We plan to register voters as we bring students to the polls for the county board races this April and the midterm elections this fall.
It is wrong to confuse radical change with immediate change. College Democrats are true progressives who consistently advocate for fundamental transformations in our country, and yet recognize great changes happen over time. True progressives do not abandon their collective organization after one year of political and passionate debate. True progressives look past the first year and even the first term in office. Their lives may be short, but true progressives advocate for the lives of their childrens’ children and generations beyond.
IP hash: 1c09e353
The truth is that college Democrats AND college Republicans are both toast. Like most Americans, college students are tired of the two-party monopoly held by both parties for more than 155 years. Few people profess loyalty to any particular party anymore. Both have consistently disappointed us. We won’t be contributing to campaigns of candidates who will only change their tune once they’re in office. We won’t be blighting our front lawns with campaign signs, only to have them stolen or vandalized. There is a whole new twist on the “us against them” mentality, with the American people being “us” and the Democrats and Republicans being “them.”
IP hash: becacb2d
You know what’s really funny? Every election cycle some person comes out and says the same thing: “The people are tired of the two-party system, and they’ll vote against both parties this time.” And every election cycle, it never happens! You’d think these people would have figured this out by now. Maybe the reason the two parties maintain power is because they actually encompass the views of a vast majority of Americans. Third parties are fringe parties who, in reality, represent a very small sliver of American views. That’s why we laugh at guys like Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.
Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
IP hash: 5421e1cd
“You know what’s really funny, blah-blah-blah…”
Translation: “I’m a member of one of those parties and damned if I’ll go to my grave allowing a third party make me and all my colleagues look like chumps for losing JUST ONE F*ING ELECTION TO A THIRD PARTY!!!!! OH NO, NOT IN MY LIFETIME!!!! I SHIT YOU NOT!!!!!
IP hash: becacb2d
Cute. Real cute, and mature. Yes, I am a member of one of those two parties. Would I let a third party win an election over “my dead body”? No. If they actually win an election, great; more power to them. I’ve got no issues with the existance of third parties. This is America, and everyone’s got the right to assemble for their own, legal ends.
Where I do take issue is when these third parties run on a national ticket, get 30,000 votes, and then harangue the voters because they got “bought in by fancy promises and suits,” or some such nonsense. It’s degrading to your party, and insulting to the American people.
You want to be taken seriously? Do it the way most political parties get their start. Run local. Find low-level positions, run for them, prove your effectiveness and build your way up. Stop wasting your time and money running for Senate, and start running for City Council, or State Representative. Why would the voter cast their ballot for your “New Party” (‘92-‘98) House candidate when they have no evidence of the party’s ability to push their agenda through?
I do not bemoan the existance of third parties. I am amused by their inability to recognize the time and effort it takes to be taken seriously in American politics.
IP hash: 67588e1c
Third party advocates will always represent a discontented sliver of the national psyche. Why?
All human brains have two (2) hemispheres that operate in concert— using prefrontal cortex orchestration via the corpus collusum— to “reason” in terms of opposition, contradiction, paradox. Typically, individuals are predisposed (by nature or nuture) to value the emotional over the rational (or vise versa); but occasionally favor Mexican stand-offs.
Many of these indecisive types become centrists, moderates and third party types. They will never understand right brain dominants, anymore than they understand left brain dominants. They ernestly believe their own delusion that decisions must be balanced.
What we see played out consistently in the political realm is that, when decision time comes, folks usually don’t remain on the fence. They value the emotional arguments vs. the rational arguments— and decide.
Show me a country ruled by indecisive leadership and I’ll show you a vanilla nation of contented losers (Belgium maybe?). Sorry, but that’s not America, my friends.
IP hash: 67588e1c
If I may further digress, Swiss beaurocrats (in the national sense) and Nepalese Buddhists (in the religious sense) favor centrism. Maybe it’s the isolation, maybe it’s the cold, maybe it’s the view, maybe it’s the borderline personality disorder of living on geo-politically vanilla borders. Who knows? But their bland tastes simply aren’t shared by most of their neighbors.
See also, Minnesota, Vermont… Wisconsin.
IP hash: 9e712b95
“President Obama, who in his first year in office has taken on universal health care and made enormous decisions to help rehabilitate our flailing economy, realized change would be a long process”
Yes, he took on health care, and he failed. Every successive week he talked about it, public approval of the plan went down. I don’t understand how this is a badge of honor.
IP hash: 19ba285f
Plus after enacting the $787 billion “stimulus” plan our economy has lost over 5 million jobs. Obama and the Democratic Congress have done nothing but talk about how we “need to create good jobs” but have yet to do anything to do so.
IP hash: f151ec33
Radical change? Obama has pushed for more of everything that his predecessors have called for. It was Bush who started the bailouts, and Obama increased them. It was Bush who kept troops in Afghanistan for years and years and years instead of pursuing a quick and decisive victory and Obama is continuing that. It was Bush who increased government involvement in health care by the largest amount ever and Obama is trying to increase it more. It was Bush who passed the onerous Sarbanes Oxley regulations, which treats all businesses as guilty and Obama is continuing that with the banks - penalizing them for simply existing.
What’s more, this kind of government intervention has been the trend for at least 100 years. And the corruption, bribery and behind-doors deal-making has only increased under Obama at his encouragement.
There’s nothing radical about it. A true radical would do something different, like advocate for freedom, individual rights and a government that is strictly limited. That would be radical.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
As much as I disagree with you normally, I think this post is pretty much spot on.
Obama was elected on a leftist mandate which somehow translated into absolutely no change of policy.
IP hash: f151ec33
You misunderstand me. I’m saying that the leftist mandate IS a no-change policy - it’s just a more consistent version of what republicans and liberals have been implementing all along.
Leftists call for socializing health care, Republicans say “not so fast” - sure we need to provide for the poor and the elderly, sure we need more regulations on those insurance companies, but let’s go a bit slower. Let’s pretend that new regulations are “free market” solutions. Let’s pass a massive government welfare scheme called Medicare D and say it increases competition. Or Cap-and-Trade, for example. (Do they even know what trade is?).
Or let’s throw a few bones, in the way of tax breaks and “stimulus checks,” not on the grounds that people have a right to keep their money, but because we want to pacify the public with “job creation” nonsense while increasing spending and running up the debt.
Then leftists get elected and say: “Let’s stop pussyfooting around pretending that people have a right to their property and money - after all, everyone agrees that government can take their property when those in power think they have a good cause - why not just nationalize it and be done with it?”
Where’s the change?
IP hash: 9e712b95
Look at the state of the Union addresses of Bush and Obama. Large portions of them push exactly the same ideas. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/bushs-third-term/
IP hash: 6ac7847b
There hasn’t been any change because democrats are all rhetoric and no action.
Democrats have been rhetorically consistent, but support for health care legislation has been very similar to Republican support for anti-abortion legislation. Both sides realize that their key issues are one of the few things that keep voters coming back to them so they purposefully sabotage these programs and then pretend to get angry at the ‘other’ side for stopping the key legislation.
You and I might not see eye to eye on policy, but the fact of he matter is that neither set of politicians is actually representing us.
IP hash: 72b5f520
As a member of this group it is so good to see our efforts recognized! I also recently found a great new news source for the LGBT community. It’s called the Wisconsin Gazette and I think its only at the UWM LGBT resource center now but maybe that’ll change. You can find them all around the city but you can also check them out at their website, i think it’s just www.wisconsingazette.com I’m also a fan of theirs on facebook!
IP hash: 9e712b95
You do realize your efforts have brought 0 in terms of results correct? Absolutely nothing.