America is a republic, not a full-blown democracy.  However, the democratic tradition in America has always been a source of national pride.  In order to declare our democratic tradition upheld, I submit that two simple criteria must be met.  First, the people (the demos) must have direct control over selecting their political representatives.  And secondly, that those representatives must accurately represent the views, values, and interests of as many of their constituents as possible.

The first criterion is guaranteed under the U.S. constitution.  But does anyone really feel like politicians in Raleigh and Washington D.C. are accurately or even remotely proportionally representing the views and preferences of the American people?  I certainly do not.

The increasing polarization of America’s two political parties began with Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and the geographical re-alignment of the parties.  The problem only got worse when gerrymandering (the practice of re-drawing congressional districts to advantage or disadvantage one party or the other, even if the districts don’t make any geographic sense) became not only tolerable, but practically demanded from both parties when they were in power.  Each state legislature gets to divide its state into its allotted number of congressional districts.  So whichever party controls the state legislature (in some states congressional re-districting also requires the governor’s signature) gets to draw congressional maps that advantage their party.  Admittedly, in principle it is not unfair to rest the responsibility of re-drawing representational maps in the hands of the people’s elected representatives.

Diminished democracy arises when state legislatures draw their maps to create nothing but “safe” seats.  Safe districts will always exist as a byproduct of geography and natural demographic distribution.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  But if congressional districts are drawn to look like small intestines so that state legislatures can minimize the number of districts which contain large Republican or Democratic neighborhoods, that’s a problem.  Gerrymandering is no longer the exception but the norm in almost every state.  This is not democracy; this is cronyism.  I’ll give you this district if you give me that one.

For example, North Carolina’s infamous 12^th congressional district was draw to squeeze as many racial minorities, the majority of whom are presumably Democrats, into one district so that they could have their own district and not have as big of an impact on other congressional races.  The 12^th congressional district contains parts of Charlotte, High Point, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem (If you are not from North Carolina, none of those cities are remotely close to one another).

But who cares if a growing majority of U.S. congressional races are “safe Republican” or “safe Democrat” seats?  Is it any less democratic to have races that are contested at the primary stage rather than the general election stage?  Yes.  Remember the second criterion for a democracy – elected representatives must accurately represent the views of the greatest number of their constituents as possible.  When only the primaries count, Congress becomes more polarized and more extreme on both ends of the political spectrum.

In the vast majority of races, primaries are won by appealing to the parties’ bases.  Voter turnout is generally lower in primaries than general elections, so voter turnout in primaries is crucial because each vote counts proportionally more.  The party base, ideologues, special interests, and the most civically-minded citizens are usually who make up primary voting populations.  So it is often the base, the ideologues, and the special interests groups who decide party candidates, and by extension the default general election winner in “safe districts.”

But is it necessarily bad to allow each party’s base and partisan hardliners to have de facto power to determine who will represent the entire district?  Not in all cases, but often yes it is bad for the hardliners on either side to have all the say on whom represents an entire city, district, or state.  If you have to come across as the most ideologically hard-line conservative or liberal to appease primary voters and ensure your election, it is going to be harder for a congressman to go to Washington and be willing to even occasionally compromise to get things done.  When partisan purity is demanded, gridlock ensues (see, D.C. right now).

Compromise is now a dirty word in Washington.  But this nation was built on compromise, and the ability of leaders to argue fervently and at the end of the day work together for constructive conclusions that represent as much of the population as feasible.  The Constitution itself was an extraordinary exercise in compromise between large states and small states, farmers and merchants, abolitionists and slave-owners.  Americans want leaders with principles, but not stubbornness.

Today politicians are finding it increasingly difficult to compromise, or even to give an inch lest they face the wrath of the partisan purists who elected them.  If you do not adhere to the party line and ideological orthodoxy you risk facing a primary challenger.  Washington would not have to be this way if congressmen and senators had to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats, their party’s base and moderates and independents to get elected, and if general elections mattered and not just primaries.  This solution to this problem is most likely technocratic – fix the re-districting system.  Some states appoint “independent commissions” to re-draw congressional maps every 10 years.  That’s not a bad idea; but then again, who appoints the “commissioners”?  My proposal is to require that every time a state legislature re-draws the congressional map, a two-thirds supermajority is required to pass it.  That would virtually require at least some support from both parties to institute a new layout, the first step towards making bipartisanship possible.

Elected officials represent not only those who voted for them, but everyone living in their district or state, and they would do well to remember that. I am not asking politicians to surrender their principles, far from it.  What politicians need to do is merely to understand that achieving 80% of their goal and compromising on 20% is better than compromising on nothing and not getting anything done.

Let’s start at the beginning. The website claims that programs like Head Start will help Julia prepare for kindergarten. Well, first off, this is not Obama’s program. It was begun under President Johnson in 1964 and expanded in 1981 under President Carter. Now more to the point, the Department of Health and Human Services found in 2011 that, “Though the program had a ‘positive impact’ on children’s experiences through the preschool years, ‘advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole. Impacts at the end of kindergarten were scattered…’”. The website says that Romney would cut programs like this by 20%. Good! This is the kind of program that should be cut. It makes minimal difference in the short-term and negligible difference in the long-term. In fact, I’ll go further and say that it should be eliminate altogether.

Next, we get to age 17. The campaign claims that “the new college- and career-ready standards” that Julia’s high school would have as a part of the Race to the Top program provide her “the classes she needs to do well”. So, after the debacle of No Child Left Behind, we are still sticking with federally mandated “standards” as the key to success? Excuse me if I do not buy it. The campaign says, “(t)he Romney/Ryan budget would cut funding for public education to pay for tax cuts for millionaires”. Well, actually, they are paying for across the board tax cuts that stimulated growth until over-spending and the government-facilitated housing bubble reversed said growth. Also, public education is a local and state issue. To send federal money to it (which will always have strings attached by the nature of politics and government grants) is to perpetuate the same problems we have seen in the school systems for years.

Then at age 18, Julia is helped through college by the American Opportunity Tax Credit. Now, the basis that the Obama campaign has for saying that Romney would let this expire is his pledge to roll back the failed stimulus package (which this was a part of). What the president’s campaign fails to mention is the accompanying elimination on long-term capital gains taxes for those making under $200,000. This calculated omission aside, I want to critique this Tax Credit on one thing. It was used by the president and by Congress as a tool in the War on Drugs. If you are convicted on drug charges, you are ineligible for the tax credit, but if you are a murderer or a rapist, by all means receive the tax credit.

Now, Julia is 22. She has undergone surgery, and because of Obamacare, she is still able to be on her parents’ insurance plan. How could anyone critique this?!? Well, it’s fairly simple actually. By mandating that all insurance companies allow this, the federal government increases costs across the board, where they were previously just on those who chose to keep their children on their plans. If instead of going with more government intervention in reform, the government had freed up the market, the option to stay on would have arisen to the extent that would meet demand, and those who did not make that choice would not bear the cost of higher premiums caused by this mandate. Also, freeing up the market to compete across state lines would have lowered these costs, even for plans that keep children on their parents’ plans.

Now, at age 23, Julia is able to stand up for her “right” to equal pay. Please! First off, rights do not come from statutes, so to call equal pay acts “rights-giving” is absurd. Now, we get to the question of whether the government should be able to decide the pay of employees working in private firms. There is absolutely no legal basis for this in the Constitution, and simply the idea that the federal government could micromanage individual firms is quite frightening. I hope that Romney does not come out in favor of it (since as the President points out, he has not yet given a position), because it is just another example of how a Progressive cause looks good on paper until you look at the unintended consequences.

At 25, the President claims that his nationalization of the student loan sector makes “[Julia’s] student loans… more manageable”. However, let’s say that Julia graduates into Obama’s economy, with its 8.4% unemployment, 18.3% underemployed (These are Gallup estimates to include underemployment. Bureau of Labor Stats has unemployment at 8.1%). Now she is out of a job, and like so many others is so disaffected that she drops out of the labor market. She cannot get away from these debts by filing for bankruptcy like she could when banks ran the student loans business. Now, the IRS will garnish her wages if she ever were to get a job. In short, I would rather have a private bank after me for money, than the IRS (which could potentially throw you in prison)… Call me crazy.

Now, Julia is 27, and she is benefitting from having birth control covered by her insurance. However, because this was mandated for all insurance plans, Julia did not have the choice to not pay for birth control since it is paid for in her premiums. She is unable to choose to put that money elsewhere. In a free market, birth control coverage certainly would have arisen as an option for those who chose it (as Julia might or might not have done). What also would have been an option is a cheaper emergency-only plan that would allow her more income. (And oh, by the way, if she does not buy insurance at the increased cost, she gets fined).

I’m going to skip to when Julia is 42 to avoid the redundancy of the two in between (which deal more with education and healthcare). She has started up a small business. Supposedly, small-business loans help get her business off the ground and she is able to employ people and grow the economy. In reality, however, Cronyism in the federal government has created regulatory environments hostile to small businesses, tax policies that favor big corporate donors, and a patent system that makes small business innovation nearly impossible. So if she were truly able to do this, she would be the exception today.

Now at 65, Obama claims that his preservation of the status quo in Medicare has guaranteed her a high level of care. However, by refusing reforms favored by Romney and Rep. Ryan, Medicare reimbursements are miniscule, and few doctors still accept Medicare patients. Those who do have huge waiting list (since to make even the slightest profit, they must see patients in extraordinary volume).

Then at 67, Julia retires, however, assuming that she began as a part of the generation currently in college, she is sad to find that the Social Security “Lock Box” was looted by big spending politicians like President Obama, and she receives just a pittance compared to what she put into the system, if she receives anything at all.

I’m editor for CRDaily. I don’t speak for anyone on this campus except for myself. I am an average student. What if I were Student Body President?As SBP I would represent the student body (Section 3 Park H). If I wrote an editorial and signed it with my title as SBP, I would be speaking as the main representative of 29,136 of my fellow students.

On April 17, Student Body President Will Leimenstoll wrote a letter to the Editor in the Daily Tar Heel where he urged the student body to vote against Amendment One.  Personally, I am against the Amendment, but this isn’t about the Amendment. This is about the Student Body President, who represents 29,136 students.

As Student Body President, you speak for the student body. When you write a letter to the editor imploring students to vote in a certain manner on an issue, you disregard the opinions of students you claim to represent. There are students on this campus who are in favor of Amendment One, and this means that you must respect that. It is easy to claim that this is a personal belief, and that would have been fine, it if had been signed without the title “Student Body President.”

The same applies for appearing on campaign websites. It’s fine to agree with a politician on an issue, but to appear as the spokesman for the Obama campaign on student loans, means that as Student Body President, the representative of the student body, you have successfully ignored the political views of a strong minority of students.

When I met with Will Leimenstoll, he informed me that he wanted to make sure that all voices were being heard on campus, even conservatives. I find that hard to believe now. His Executive Board, full of Young Democrats and Moreheads, is obviously out of touch with any student who holds differing opinions. He needs to stop pretending to listen to those that disagree with his beliefs, and actually do so.

I sincerely hope that President Leimenstoll does not abuse his position as Student Body President further by urging us to vote for President Obama or Walter Dalton for Governor. I hope that he realizes that once he puts his title on anything that he says, he speaks for 29,136 students, not just himself. It’s a tough lesson, but it’s time to learn it.

Dear Mr. Seelinger,

I am writing in reference to your inquiry regarding the reference to Amendment One on the Campus Y’s Facebook page.

Although the student committees in the Campus Y have a long-standing history of taking a stance on social justice issues, state law prohibits them from using University equipment, resources or services, such as computer networks or websites, to promote support for or to oppose an issue in an election.  The Campus Y committees may, however, encourage early voting.  I am working with the staff in the Campus Y to revise the messaging in the Facebook header to better reflect the applicable law and the importance of early voting.

I think the issue of interest here is the “authority and prestige” argument presented in my first post. There are many forms by which a university unit may communicate: email, websites, fliers, etc. Facebook is simply another medium.

Instead of giving the generals in Afghanistan the number of troops they said the need to accomplish the mission, or admitting that it is finally time to end the mission and bringing all of our troops home, the president fecklessly ordered a surge a fraction of the recommended size – a dim-witted combination of those two options.  In 2009, the president failed to even verbally praise the Green Revolution in Iran, and in doing so missed an opportunity to support what could have been a regime change in the most hostile nation on the planet.  He took a back seat in the NATO mission in Libya to…France.  He left Iraq against cautions from the generals on the ground who said to secure the gains there we needed to stay just a little while longer.  And all of these actions were after the president began his time in office by traveling around the world apologizing on behalf of America for…well I’m not quite sure what we did wrong.

All of this has led to the (accurate?) impression that the president is shaky on foreign policy.  Put it this way, Michelle Obama takes a harder line against fast food restaurants than Barack Obama takes against America’s enemies.

Now that he is running for re-election, he has to demonstrate somehow, some way that he is tough.  After 10 long and costly years of searching, it just so happened that America found Osama bin Laden while Barack Obama was in the White House.  I don’t care if Winnie the Pooh was in the White House on May 2, 2011, the result would have been the same: we would have taken the bastard out.  While yes, there were risks involved in the mission, those risks were borne by the SEALs not the president.  Technically Obama had options, and the “go” order was his decision; but it was a pretty straightforward decision, at least according to current and retired SEALs.

Ryan Zinke, “a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit,” recently told the U.K.’s Daily Mail, “The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call…I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.”

Bill Clinton called Obama’s decision “gutsy.”  Remember, Bill Clinton’s idea of a gutsy strike against Osama bin Laden when he was president was to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan.

The president displayed an extraordinary amount of hubris when he said (on multiple occasions) that Mitt Romney might not have given the “go” order, and even made that outrageous assertion into a campaign ad.  Even Arianna Huffington critiqued the president for making this military mission a political issue, calling his ad “despicable.”

The intelligence gathering that led to the discovery of bin Laden began under President Bush and was carried out by the American military and intelligence services.  The actual discovery was combination of efforts by multiple branches of the military, not just the Navy.  And the final operation was carried out by the Navy SEALs who bore the risk and overcame the danger of the decision.  President Obama made the right decision in taking out Osama bin Laden; but as Mitt Romney pointed out “Even Jimmy Carter would have made that call.”  Turning a military mission and one of the most triumphant moments in the War on Terror into a campaign hack-job is a dishonor to the military and a disgrace to Obama’s role of commander-in-chief.  Mr. President, if you believe that you are a strong leader and a tough commander in chief, you should not have to tell the American people that; your actions should speak for themselves.

Darling Marc and CR Daily,

In response to your article (ow.ly/axr7m), we would like to share the following with you….

a) the Y is a student organization and has a budget (which helps fund our website) independent of university funding;

b) We never knew the Y’s Facebook page was owned by the state of North Carolina

c) we are the CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE; OF COURSE WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT!

#sorryweareREALLYnotsorry

WITH LOVE,

Jagir Patel and Mackenzie Thomas

Co-Presidents of the Campus Y who are STRONGLY AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE.

So, let’s address these points one by one, shall we?

A) “ the Y is a student organization and has a budget (which helps fund our website) independent of university funding”

Interesting claim, considering that the Y also has several paid employees of the University running the place. I’ve compiled a list of the relevant persons and their respective university-paid salaries below (all data taken from the University of North Carolina Salary Database):

1. Richard Harrill, Director: $61,000

2. Lucy Lewis, Assistant Director and Director of the Bonnor Leader Program: $46,886 (plus a $2344 non-state salary)

There are other university employees who work at the Y, but these two are the two that the University General Administration classifies as receiving their salaries from the Campus Y Department (though, I’m reliably told that the better word to use is “Division”). If the UNC GA classifies the Y as a division, that’s good enough for me.

B) “We never knew the Y’s Facebook page was owned by the state of North Carolina”

Well, you might consider reading the UNC Policy Manual, particularly Policy 105. The relevant part is, “Political Activity: Political activity by University employees is regulated by Federal and State law and University policy. No employee may use University funds, vehicles, equipment, supplies, or other resources in connection with partisan political activities. This includes the use of University electronic resources” Note that this also calls into question their use of the university website.

C) “we are the CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE; OF COURSE WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT!”

Right.

Click each image for larger close-ups

It’s a well-known fact that the university and university departments aren’t supposed to take public stances on candidates for office or ballot initiatives. Indeed, NC General Statue 126-13 expressly forbids a state employee from “us[ing] the authority of his position, or utiliz[ing] State funds, supplies or vehicles to secure support for or oppose any candidate, party, or issue in an election involving candidates for office or party nominations, or affect the results thereof.” UNC policy also prohibits employees from using the “authority and prestige of position” to affect the outcome of partisan elections.

All of this casts the use of the Campus Y Facebook account and their official university website (photos above) in an interesting light. The Campus Y, you’ll recall, is “under the Carolina Union umbrella,” which is, in turn, a department under the Division of Student Affairs. So, this raises an interesting question: Is the Campus Y, an official department of the University, breaking the law by endorsing the opposition position on Amendment One? I think the answer is clearly “yes.” They are using the “authority and prestige” of their position to endorse a partisan issue. Additionally, the use of the official university website clearly violates the prohibition against using State funds and supplies in partisan elections.

Simply put, this action is in clear violation of the law. It is absolutely shameful that UNC feels that it can simply ignore the law in order to make a political point. Not only does this action reflect poorly on the University, it also reflects poorly on the anti-Amendment campaign, which apparently will resort to any means necessary to win.

Update: There seems to be some confusion about University-sponsored groups vs. University-recognized groups. According to the UNC Organization Manual, with regard to University-recognized groups, “The University does not sponsor or endorse activities associated with these groups.” So groups like the College Republicans, Young Democrats, Carolina Review, etc. can use the University’s name in their club names and advertising, but UNC does not actually endorse the actions of these groups.

The bit concerning University-sponsored groups is a bit more interesting. It reads,

“In certain limited situations a student group may act, in the performance of one of its essential core functions, as an agent of the University. A student group can act to carry out this essential University function only through authority expressly delegated to that group by either the Chancellor or the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs. This recognition is given with the understanding that these groups have agreed to act responsibly as agents for the University. On an annual basis, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs identifies those student organizations that are recognized by the University as “University-sponsored” as these may change from year to year. Although a student group may function as an agent for the University in the performance of certain core functions, it may not be an agent for all purposes.”

The way I read it, unless otherwise specified, the Campus Y is an official extension of the University, which is why it is administered by the Division of Student Affairs. The Campus Y’s endorsement of the opposition position on Amendment 1 is concerning precisely because of this relationship with the University. The fact that they posted their support of this position on an official University website, at the very least, gives the impression that the University endorses this position. And that, dear friends, is very illegal.

Update II: I also highly recommend this link (from the Office of NC State’s General Counsel). It helps clarify some of the issues concerning university participation in elections.

28

29

30

31

Since the DTH has apparently abandoned any pretense of a fair discussion of the matter, it has fallen to more responsible parties to pick up the slack. To that end, I’ve reproduced (below) a letter to the editor from a former CR staffer that the DTH has refused to publish.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

To the Editor,

In Thursday’s Quick Hits, the Daily Tar Heel claimed that “there is nothing conservative about Amendment One” and “If you don’t want the government involved in your life, then you shouldn’t vote for an amendment that would infringe on citizens’ liberty.”

I believe the editorial staff have made the common error of confusing conservatism with libertarianism. Conservatism is not an ideological drive towards a minarchist state with maximum freedoms and minimum government. Rather, conservatism seeks to create a ‘right-ordering’ of society based on principles of truth, natural law and basic human rights to life, liberty and property. As William F. Buckley put it, “Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition.”

This does not mean eliminating as much government as possible, but instead ordering government to best maintain society. Edmund Burke once wrote that “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without…Men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Conservatives recognize that liberty requires restraint, preferably from a person’s own conscience. In some cases such as the civil law of marriage, it is necessary for the government to restrain certain passions. Therefore, many conservatives support Amendment One.