Godiva Reisenbichler | Student Life

It was not always thus. In decades and centuries past, Americans, perhaps unaware of their politicians’ improprieties, elected them based on their extra-personal merits. In some cases, Americans even elected presidents regardless of their potential transgressions; Grover Cleveland was elected president in 1884, despite taking responsibility for fathering an illegitimate child that may not have been his own. Obsession with politicians’ personal lives, or at least allowing that obsession to influence votes, is a relatively new phenomenon and one that has absolutely no place in our political system.

The conflation of a politician’s moral fiber and his ability to lead a nation is a mind-bendingly erroneous one, and one that has no factual basis. In America, many of our greatest politicians have, in some sense, been scoundrels. Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, allegedly had an affair and fathered four children with one of his slaves and later fell in love with a married woman with whom he spent every day for six weeks. FDR dragged America out of the Great Depression, led it to victory in World War II, had long-running, recognized affairs with two women, almost divorced his wife for one of them, and was so adored by the American people that he was elected to four consecutive terms. Even George Washington was accused of some romantic wrongdoing.

These are only a few of the presidents we know of (to say nothing of LBJ and JFK) who have committed acts that would be highly controversial in today’s political climate. The number who have committed such acts but have successfully managed to hide their actions can only be guessed at. But many of the aforementioned men were renowned in their time, and none received serious or effective attacks upon his character. It is only recently, with Republican attacks on Bill Clinton, that a president or politician’s moral rectitude with regard to the home has become important, and of the past three presidents, only the one who was impeached for lying about his private life can be said to have been truly successful.

A politician’s public and private life must be kept separate. Obviously, a person who embezzles and commits fraud is ill-suited to a career in the public sector, but there is no reason to believe that one’s family values have any impact on his leadership abilities. The modern tendency to believe that the former informs the latter is entirely unsupported, and we would do well to remember that that tendency arose because of a partisan attack on a president, not because of any desire for more honesty in the position.

“Miss Representation” is a documentary film that investigates how the media’s portrayal of women has resulted in the underrepresentation of women in influential political positions. The film premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and has aired several times on OWN–the Oprah Winfrey Network.

“The media is both the message and the messenger,” Pat Mitchell, former president and CEO of PBS, explains in the film. Just look at the way Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were criticized in the last Presidential election—news anchors across the country did not hesitate to comment on Clinton’s “haggard” appearance or inquire about whether or not Palin had breast implants.

Mona Lena Krook, an assistant professor in both the Political Science and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies departments, agreed that the media produces a large portion of the distorted images of women and ideas about gender. She recalls growing up with four TV channels and learning about email during her college orientation in the early ’90s. “Now, the media has gained more importance even though the messages have been confused. When people think about gender equality, they think about always moving forward, but the media today is far less radical—there is less of a social consciousness,” Krook said.

So do women possess less political ambition than men? For the answer, Krook pointed to the observation made by founding president of the White House Project, Marie Wilson, in “Miss Representation”: “You can’t be what you can’t see.” In previous generations, women formed their identities and learned about appropriate behavior from their parents and friends. Now, we watch how the media criticizes female politicians—some of the most powerful women in the country—and we see the current obsession with achieving feminine beauty and perfection, and so we question whether men are able to take any woman in America seriously.

But women are not innately less interested in holding positions of political influence. According to Krook, girls are not only equally likely, but also sometimes even more likely to run for political office and hold positions in student governments than boys. As children, girls and boys in equal number want to be president of the United States when they grow up, but by age 15 there is a huge disparity. “There is some period in your teens when women feel pressure to socialize themselves to step back and not put themselves forward,” Krook said.

Junior political science major Julia Pockros weighed in, “When looking at history, political leaders were often those who led armies and fought in wars, meaning men. That same idea exists today—women in politics have to exhibit the emotions of a fighter. But even more than that, it’s just not the historical ‘role’ of women in the same way that men are not supposed to stay at home.”

In the absence of being able to change the law, there are still ways that we, as college students, have the ability to change the concept of women’s “historical role” as well as the influence of the demeaning themes seen in the media. “Be brave on a person-to-person basis,” Krook encouraged.

It is also important to recognize that women can exercise their power by changing the way they participate in consumer culture, Krook argued. She concluded, “There isn’t a natural hierarchy, our society just teaches us that there is one.”

Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Student Union treasurers cast their votes to fund the College Democrat’s appeal to bring Vice President Al Gore to campus in the spring. The total cost of the appeal was $92,350.

Student reactions to the decision are mixed.

The vote in favor of funding Gore for that amount was 12-1 with two abstaining due to conflicts of interest. All voting members were in favor of bringing Gore to campus, but one member was in favor of allocating more money.

Pending final contracts being signed, Gore is expected to come to campus this spring.

Sophomore Elizabeth Peters said that while she’d be happy to attend Gore’s speech, she doubts the College Democrats will be able to coordinate the event to fit his schedule.

“I’d definitely go because I like his government policy talks, [but] I’ll be incredibly impressed if it actually goes through,” Peters said.

Of the 263 people SU surveyed in the DUC Monday, 162 students voted in favor of bringing Gore to campus.

Some students said that they are happy that a well-known speaker is coming to campus, but not necessarily happy that it is Gore.

“I’m kind of a skeptic of global warming and his agenda for different reasons. But he’s a big name and I think that’s good for the University,” freshman Michael Kruse said.

Others said they’re excited to hear Gore speak, as long as his lecture isn’t just a rehashing of “An Inconvenient Truth”—his Academy Award-winning film from 2006.

“I’m really excited about it,” sophomore Andrew Ridker said. “I’m excited for both the political and environmental perspectives he can bring—it’s kind of getting an all-in-one.”

Leaders of the College Democrats said that the former Vice President, Academy Award Winner and Nobel Peace Prize recipient would be an ideal speaker, appealing to a diverse audience by splitting his discussion between government and sustainability.

Students at the SU Treasury meeting generally spoke in favor of funding his speech, even while some disagreed with his political views.

“I also support this—even though I’m not the biggest fan of the guy,” said junior Joel Yambert, president of the College Republicans. “I think that this will bring a big social and political group of people…and I feel like it’s a great effort.”

The event, originally costing $149,850, was presented to SU Treasury at a reduced cost by negotiating the cost of Gore’s honorarium and obtaining funding from the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, the Department of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering, the Gephardt Institute, CS40 and the Department of Political Science.

The final cost of Gore’s honorarium was $110,000, which covers both his flights and his speech.

College Democrats ultimately appealed for $94,350, all of which was funded except for the $2,000 reception planned to follow his speech.

At the meeting, SU Treasury also allocated money to bring four small-cost speakers to the University.

Gore was the only “big speaker” on the docket. Asian Multicultural Council dropped its appeal to bring author and journalist Fareed Zakaria to the University earlier this week.

“After writing the presentation [for SU], our group realized Fareed Zakaria wasn’t exactly what the Asian Multicultural Council wanted to push for this year,” speaker for the group, David Yang, said. “It was a very sudden drop; we spent pretty much three to five hours writing the appeal, and then we were like—wait, this doesn’t make sense.”

The group joined the Korean Students Association in presenting its appeal to fund a speech by Daphne Kwok, an advisor to President Barack Obama.

SU Treasury funded their appeal for $2,021. Treasury also allocated funds to GlobeMed for Dr. Joia Mukherjee, Engineers Without Borders for TV personality Deanne Bell and Reflections for motivational speaker Jess Weiner.

Those groups were allocated $10,721, $8,150 and $6,727, respectively. Alpha Epsilon Delta, the pre-medical honorary society, was allocated $100 to hold a student discussion with Dr. Arthur Kleinman, who is coming as part of the University’s Assembly Series.

I once had a friend who believed in a very strict platform of one political party (for our purposes, it doesn’t even matter which). Listening to her political opinions became a practice akin to listening to passages from a Bible during a particularly tricky exorcism. You’d be hard pressed to get a word in yourself. This kind of approach typifies a small, but still significant, amount of political debate that I hear on campus. One person believes X and another thinks Y and they will forever remain divided along party lines, shouting over each other and embarrassing their neutral friends with the tenacity and incivility of their disagreement.

These are not democrats (notice the lower-case letter) but rather tools of proxy; theirs is an argument not fought from their own core beliefs but rather developed through a series of sound bytes and thin rationalities that they’ve stored in their brains on autopilot as they allowed their power for analysis to collect cobwebs. It’s easy to take political views that can be shouted rather than explained. Doctrines work like protractors; you can pin down the pencil on an issue and draw a perfect circle around it without ever having to pick up your hand and assess.

I believe that real citizenship hinges on the humility to examine and understand your own beliefs without allowing them to cloud your ability to consider others as legitimate alternatives. The nature of democracy with a lowercase d is founded upon the idea that your beliefs are equally as legitimate as my own; our votes are counted in the same measure of one. You should take the time to work out your stance on each individual issue instead of simply finding a viewpoint and building dogmatic walls of defense around it. Considering substitutes and weighing different approaches will strengthen (not dilute) your own conviction to whatever you choose. You’ll be able to understand the depths of your opinions and defend them (in inside voices) on many fronts. You’ll be able to recognize the legitimacy of the opposing argument without calling ignorance or stupidity to the other side.

I wanted this article to reach you at the beginnings of the election process before we become consumed with the he-said, she-retorted game of politics. If you find yourself in the midst of a war of dogma and verbal napalm, take a moment to remember that your friend’s ideas come from real places and that the people eating at the other end of the DUC probably don’t want to hear you either way. Turn down the volume, take a breath, and engage in a real conversation. You’ll probably learn a lot more that way.

Becky Zhao | Student Life

As a political science minor, I have become increasingly cynical toward American foreign policy since coming to college. Not that I’m alone—this attitude has been fashionable among liberal-minded people and hipsters since the 1970s, becoming ever more virulent since the Bush administration’s involvement in the Middle East. Getting a formalized polisci education has only deepened my already-present cynicism. I have learned that not everyone agreed with Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War and that the CIA has undertaken secret operations everywhere from Iran to Guatemala in the name of national security. As much as I hate to admit it, this isn’t even a partisan issue. Even during the Clinton administration, the CIA was involved in covert operations in Kosovo. We all know about the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay and wire-tapping—they have almost lost their shock-value.

One main theme that my professors have emphasized is the tension between freedom and security—how much freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of movement can we have without opening ourselves to potential threat? Conversely, how much wiretapping and government secrecy can we stand without violating the very principles that Americans profess as basic creed? How comfortable should we be as ordinary citizens with that trade-off? It’s easy to take an extreme stance either way because nuances are messy and require asking questions like “if we don’t tap these phones, will there be a terrorist attack?” and “what if these people we’ve detained and tortured are innocent?”

As college students, we’re the next generation of government watchdogs, not only those of us who choose to pursue journalism, but also future politicians and voting citizens. We have a duty to consider these questions and either accept the status quo or push for change. As for myself, I will probably continue to grow increasingly cynical about America’s foreign policy and covert missions. However, I have to admit, even though I believe torture is wrong, I’m not 100 percent opposed to Guantanamo Bay when I think about 9/11…and that thought scares me.

Kate Oberg | Student Life

You would probably be confused. The information on which you base your decision won’t make you healthier if the doctor is fudging the numbers.

Didn’t I go to the doctor’s office to get facts about how I’m doing and how to get healthier?

I’m obviously not talking about a real doctor. A real doctor who did these things would never be allowed to practice medicine again. However, Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican senator, essentially did that when he claimed “well over 90 percent” of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion. Every fact-checker called him out on that, as that number is actually 3 percent. This led to Kyl’s office responding with this actual line: “His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but was rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.” Kyl made this remark on the floor of the Senate, where the business is debate, and he admits that he lied to make a point. How can we trust what he says if he admits to lying, not mistakenly, but rather as part of his argument?

That is not the first fact-based issue that Kyl’s Republican colleagues have had. For example, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) does not believe in global climate change, so he proposed cutting all money from what he called “junk science,” the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which focuses on fact rather than opinion. Luetkemeyer proposed this cut based on his personal review of the IPCC’s work and his experience as a farmer and a banker. While these jobs make him highly qualified to represent rural Missouri, they do not qualify him to fact check the IPCC. He looked at what the panel was advocating for, saw he disagreed with it and decided that it was “junk science.”

Facts are critical to any debate, but as the great former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” And that’s fair. Luetkemeyer is entitled to his own opinion, but refusing facts by opposing organizations is not the way to win arguments.

Perhaps Luetkemeyer is just a member of his caucus. All but one House Republican voted against the majority of scientists by voting against a resolution recognizing climate change as a man-made event with disastrous consequences, clearly basing their voting on opinion rather than on fact.

This problem is probably top-down, and no man leads his party more than House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). He strongly defends his policies against any opponent, be it unions or the pro-choice movement.

He is willing even to repeatedly attack the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which scores specific policy proposals and talks about how the policy would affect the budget. He even said that the CBO is “entitled to their opinion.”

The media and those who dislike making up facts have criticized Kyl for his comment on the floor and the ensuing explanation. However, Kyl simply follows his Republican colleagues’ lead when it comes to facts. The current policy of mistreating facts is not something that we as thoughtful constituents can tolerate. As students, making up facts is something that would get us fired from our jobs or kicked out of school. We hold our employees, these congressmen, to the same standard. In the next election, we should vote out and rid Washington of politicians who live by Boehner’s musing, “Facts have a liberal bias, so just make up your own.” Or something like that.

In his speech, Suarez explored the effects that religion has on politics in American society.

His speech, titled “The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in America,” followed the subject matter of his 2006 book of the same title. The book, which is composed of a series of essays and anecdotes, investigates the connection between faith and the American political system.

He stressed the importance of understanding and appreciating the relationship between modern politics and religion.

According to Suarez, many political conflicts are grounded in religious norms.

“The economic crisis has taken focus off a lot of issues like abortion and school prayer…but there’s continuing speculation about Islam and America,” Suarez said. “We’re using our religious identity to try and work out ongoing social anxieties, and it’s going to continue.”

According to Suarez, it is important that people are able to respect the nation’s secularity and promote a live-and-let-live social standard, regardless of their personal religious fervor.

“I don’t need my faith to be affirmed or endorsed by having religious statues in public places,” Suarez said. “I don’t feel like America should use specific activities and venues that exclude people.”

Suarez said that the main argument in favor of creating a nationalized religious culture—that it engenders an intrinsic, guiding morality in individuals—is not necessarily true.

“We didn’t need Jehovah to tell Moses to tell us that murder was bad. Morality has a relationship to religion, but it might not be as intimate as religious people think,” Suarez said.

According to Suarez, political candidates should be considered based on their personal merit as opposed to their personal religious views.

Still, he says that personal values of politicians are influential and important for voters to consider.

Suarez cited President George W. Bush as one of the most publicly religious U. S. presidents ever, yet he left his presidency with one of the worst public approval ratings in history.

Ultimately, Suarez said that students should look past the personal dimensions of candidates and focus on the platforms they represent.

“All of this is more complicated than you’ve been told,” Suarez said. “It’s all part of the kind of discernment that you’re going to carry through your life.”

As director of the Center, Griffith will be in charge of recruiting staff, developing an intellectual community and implementing the Center’s programs.

Griffith was selected for her long-term experience with religious scholarship and social issues, as well as her openness to diverse opinions.

“The thing we’ve been most concerned with from the very start is finding leadership that can create a sense of an open community—that is to say, for a wide range of opinions are going to get expressed and treated seriously and respectfully,” said Wayne Fields, director of American Culture Studies and founding director of the Center. “She’s got a wide range both of personal and professional experience with groups across the spectrum of religion and politics.”

Griffith is currently the John A. Bartlett Professor of New England Church History at Harvard University, where she teaches in the divinity school. Prior to her time at Harvard, she was a professor at Princeton University.

University administrators have expressed excitement at Griffith’s arrival.

“I am delighted that Marie Griffith, one of the nation’s top scholars in areas of importance to the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics, has agreed to take on this significant leadership position,” Chancellor Mark Wrighton said in a news release.

According to Fields, it was important for the selection committee to choose a director who would encourage open intellectual conversation.

The John C. Danforth Center for Religion & Politics was founded in 2010 with a $30 million endowment from the Danforth Foundation, a nonprofit organization that grants funds exclusively to the St. Louis region. The Center aims to encourage conversation about the connection between religion and politics by hosting visiting scholars and conferences, and by offering a minor in religion and public life for undergraduates at the University.

“The Danforth Center is unique as a place where scholars, civic and religious leaders and community members can engage in constructive dialogue about key issues related to the interplay of religion and politics in America,” Wrighton said. “Marie will lead the Danforth Center and shape the development of its programs.”

With Griffith on board, the Center will continue to seek faculty hires that complement her aspirations for the program.

“She has the ability to do her own work, but also to recognize the importance of other people doing theirs; and recognizing, too, that the University is connected to the larger culture and the larger society,” Fields said. “I think it’s an extraordinary thing we’re trying to do here.”

Griffith hopes to use the Center to explore the social implications of religion and politics.

“I am honored by this exciting opportunity to delve constructively into the political and religious divisions in our culture,” Griffith said in a press release. “I very much want to sponsor real dialogues and debates among people who hold disparate views but are willing to think deeply together about substantive issues, perhaps even overcome a few stereotypes of other people.”

Griffith is slated to begin the position on July 1.

In the Tea Party’s case, health care reform proposed by the Democrats served as the catalyst of the movement; for the Wisconsin protesters, it was Gov. Scott Walker’s decision to curtail the rights of union members to bargain collectively. Each has denounced the government turning its back on “Main Street” in favor of special interests, and each has expressed this discontent through mass protests designed specifically to get the attention of lawmakers.

In addition to popular opposition, however, a cornerstone of the movement against health care reform was the Republican ability to delay its passage through the controversial use of obstructionist parliamentary tactics by those in Congress, namely the filibuster. For months, a group of exactly 40 Republicans in the Senate were able to block debate on health care legislation proposed by Democrats, and Democrats in turn failed to draw one Republican senator to vote for their bill.

If “filibuster” was the despised word of the Left during 2009, the Right has found its equal in “walkout” for 2011. The “walkout” refers to the tactic used by Democratic senators in the minority in Wisconsin to leave the legislature (and the state) and deprive the body of the quorum of twenty necessary to make budget-related law. With 14 Democratic senators currently in Illinois and Governor Walker unwilling to budge on his demands, actual political debate on the issue has ground to a virtual halt.

This trend has also spread to Indiana, where Governor Mitch Daniels attempted to pass legislation similar to that of Governor Walker, only to have almost all of the Democratic legislators in his state employ the same tactics to deprive the body of a quorum. In the case of Indiana, the Democrats were successful: Daniels quickly tabled the collective bargaining legislation in return for Democrats returning to the state. Thus far in Wisconsin, neither side is blinking.

Though debate about the merits of specific legislation is one thing, debate over the abuse of parliamentary procedure is something different altogether. I side with the protesters over the rights of union workers to bargain collectively, and regard this as a majority view: Recent polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of the Wisconsin public sector employees keeping their ability to bargain collectively. Clearly, Governor Walker is culpable in the current impasse due to his refusal to compromise.

At a certain point, however, it is necessary to examine the cost of the walkouts. Quorums were not established to grind lawmaking to a virtual standstill whenever those in the legislative minority disagree, just as the filibuster was not intended to make 60 votes necessary to pass any piece of legislation in the Senate. As history proves, once these parliamentary rules are abused once, their abuse becomes all the more commonplace in politics.

This is not to say that the protests themselves are unhealthy: indeed, they are necessary to communicate to a stubborn governor just what is at stake for thousands of his constituents. What I am suggesting, however, is that as a country we cannot allow for the mentality that it is okay to halt debate when the outcome is not in your favor and bring our political system to a point of gridlock.

Currently, we live in a democracy where it is a big deal if more than half of those eligible to vote participate in elections. One of the key reasons that those who do not participate refrain from voting is the general notion that the U.S. government is ineffective in addressing the concerns of citizens: Much of this disillusionment is caused by gridlock. Every time a Republican senator filibusters an important bill that they disagree with, every time a Democratic legislator drives to Illinois to block Republicans from voting on the budget and every time a majority and a minority refuse to reach a compromise, they exacerbate this gridlock and make our government less likely to accomplish anything at all.

Hopefully, the current Wisconsin debacle will drive more people to express themselves through the polls; what it will not do, however, is provide for a productive legislative session. Some of the blame falls on Governor Walker’s failure to compromise; some of it also falls on the Democrats who skipped town. Either way, the big loser in the scenario where political rules are abused is the government, and, in a democracy, that also means the American people.

Its kind of hard to be in St. Louis, far away from just about everything, and not be able to do anything. But even if we can’t physically help—if I find a safe way to beat Moammar Gadhafi to a bloody pulp, I’m going to be skipping class for a few days—we can aid those fighting in the streets right now, just by paying attention.

I’ve made pleas for increased political literacy before, but all the issues of three months ago pale in comparison to the revolutions occurring right now. These people need us to pay attention to their fight because that is the way change is created.

Discourse is important in any political issue, but these revolutions are driven by it. They started online, and without the ability of everyone to connect, without the ability to instantly get information around a country, none of this would have even started, let alone lasted as long as it has. Without anyone paying attention, this campaign for freedom would be dead.

Instead of being apathetic like we always are, we could use this opportunity to really get involved and stay involved, because the people out there need help, in any form, and if that requires watching CNN or reading The New York Times to make sure they are reporting on it, that is what needs to happen.

Talk to anyone who is in Libya right now, and they all will tell you the same thing: that they are heartened by our support, they take strength from our concern, and they need everyone to keep paying attention and to learn as much as they can about the struggle.

There are reasons for being apathetic about things, and I agree with Matthew Curtis’ recent column; knowledge can really be a chore sometimes. It is hard to stay informed about everything, and most issues are never as life-or-death as everyone makes them out to be, so apathy can be forgiven most of the time.

That is not the case now. When crowds are fighting in the streets, when a government is indiscriminately slaughtering its citizens for exercising their God-given right to protest, it is time for you to take notice and take action however you can.

Personally, I have absolutely zero idea what the protesters need from us right now, but if we can get in contact, they can tell us. Maybe they don’t need anything physical, but I know that if we just pay attention, if we make sure that for once an issue isn’t ignored or forgotten, things will change in the Middle East.

We should remember that the people fighting out there aren’t some fringe group that we can’t relate to. These are people our age doing something more important for their country than most of us will ever accomplish for ours. If you don’t care about the political issues, be inspired by the fact that these people are so similar to you in a lot of ways and are fighting for something truly important.

So join a Facebook group in support of Libyan revolutionaries, follow a Twitter account cataloging protests in Iran, keep track of how Egypt is doing in building a new democracy. Do whatever you can to listen to what is going on in the world, just this once, Wash. U. These people are fighting for survival at this very moment, and we can do a little something to help.