This election marked a historic first time we
elected a black president for a second term. That’s good and all but there are
factors that came up in this election season that will have far greater
consequences for a long time. Two of those factors are the unmanned drone
attacks that Obama authorized and Citizens United.
Only a year ago, Obama ordered a drone attack to assassinate
Anwar Al-Awlaki. He was an American citizen—I can’t stress this more—that was
supposedly involved in terrorist plot. He was born in New Mexico in 1971 and
lived most of his life in the states. Only a few years ago did he travel to the
Middle East and that’s when he started to become radicalized. I’m not saying
that he was innocent, I’m saying that he was an American Citizen who deserved
to have a fair trial—the constitution states that no person may “be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clearly wasn’t
the case when it came to Awlaki. Though we constantly criticize governments
that attack their citizens—Syria, for example—we had no problem with assassinating
an American Citizen. Bush’s foreign policy was a very anti-anything-but-America
policy but we tried to remain civil—to our own citizens, at least. I think that
this is where Obama surpasses Bush. Obama is the first president, ever, to have
this much control. Obama is almost acting like a King, just like King John
putting a bounty on Robin Hood, Obama put a target on Awlaki’s head. Never has
a president had this much power, and to tell you the truth, I’m afraid of what
presidents after him are going to do.
Citizens United was a non-profit that appealed to
the Supreme Court about unlimited corporate funding in elections. After much
debate, unlimited funding by corporations was deemed as constitutional, and
this, I believe, make it clear that corporations and money controls our
country. The top two parties used a combined 2
billion dollars in campaigning. The rest spent an inconsequential amount of
money when compared to the money spent by the top two parties. People say that “Oh
well Romney spend a bit less than Obama and the fact that Obama won shows us
that we are becoming a country where money is of little issue in elections…” I
think that this is just dumb. The bottom 18 parties got less than 2 percent of
the vote. Why? Because they couldn’t compete with the amount of money that the
top two parties had.
So what do you guys
think of this election? Do you think these two factors will have lasting repercussions?
Do you think that we will ever be able to go back to the 90’s when we had a
good economy and good policies? What are some other factors that influence
elections?
You certainly raise some good concerns. I'm not sure this is a new development, though. Consider the Manhattan Project and all of its results (perhaps we haven't truly felt the worst of them yet?).
ReplyDeleteIt's true that money has a big impact on elections, but our system is also set up such that small parties are put at a disadvantage in other ways (consider the fact that a candidate must have the support of 15 percent of the electorate to be eligible to participate in a presidential debate hosted by The Commission on Presidential Debates).
Both the drone attack of Anwar Al-Awlaki and Citizens United are very important issues that have been overlooked. However, I think you have missed the point of the significance of both.
ReplyDeleteWhat is problematic about the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki is not only that an American citizen was executed, but the lack of procedure around his death. The Attorney General gave very poor reasoning for the defense of the killing, and the event has left a poor taste in the mouths of many who feel as you do with regards to the power it gives the executive office. However, I do not think the act will establish a basis upon which future presidents will be able to act- Our justice system did address complaints against the executive branches decision, and threw the case out on legally solid grounds. It is intriguing, however, that the killing of an American, even one suspected of being involved in terrorist attacks, should prompt such a fervor when compared to the other drone attacks- why should one life hold more value than another? If understood politically, the United States is effectively killing citizens of other countries-. With or without the other governments consent, we are exerting much more power than was ever originally invested in the Constitution.
While the Citizens United decision was frustrating for those how champion finance reforms, the problems inherent to the two party systems are not really linked to that. The two party systems has been established for a very long time in this country (with few exception, since the earliest elections), and the sad reality is that it’s not going anywhere. While the waste and corruption of those parties is certainly deplorable, this is not the problems of Citizens United. The problems with Citizens united are the power individuals exert in speech when they are wealthy. Freedom of speech is generally understood as universal, and therefore when the wealthier have more access to speech, they are being granted a greater ability with which to present ideas than others. However, speech can only go so far, and despite the unfairness of the system, I hardly see it changing.
A word of advice- The president is the Head of the Executive branch, elected through representation by the people, and charged with the task of fulfilling the legislation established by the Legislature and as understood or interpreted via court cases by the Judiciary. I think it is hardly accurate in either of these cases to solely blame Obama. However, they are certainly problems his administration could be more proactive in addressing.